Across the country this week crowds and elected officials have called for votes to abolish police and their claim on society and life on the streets.
By David Tulis / NoogaRadio 92.7 FM
Defunding police is a leading proposal for Chattanooga protesters decrying abuse by city employees who work as peacekeepers, law enforcement and gunman — in the interests of public safety and for other purposes.
It is the theme of dozens and dozens who speak online in a Zoom meeting with the city council, with 500 on the list, councilwoman Carol Berz says.
On Sunday the city council of Minneapolis voted to zero out the police department. That agency employs about 700 officers. Around the country political parties and people are considering the clamor for abolition.
The slaying of George Lloyd is a picture of how police work highhandedly upon members of the public, viewing them not as souls and citizens but as property, subjects and suspects, enforcing laws upon them illicitly without actual lawful authority.
Other elements of the demands and Chattanooga are an end to cash bail, freeing people convicted of paper crimes (victimless), the demilitarization of police, parole and probation reform.
The desire to end cash bail has biblical warrant, in a doctrine that should be routinely taught from the Christian pulpit, but which isn’t, given a century of pietistic theology which has rendered Christianity a watered down version of his former self fit to be trodden under foot of men come as it has lost its savor.
The demand for demilitarization and displacement of cops is also biblically warranted. The short form of this argument highlights the distinction between the office of the civil magistrate in the biblical covenant versus that proposed by the modern total state.
Passive government, or aggressive
The biblical theory of the civil government is that it is judicial in nature, with a sheriff protecting and enforcing the orders of the court, with the entire life and economy of the people left to their discretion and liberty. This conception of government has great respect for individuals and families, and less regard for power and administrative centralization. The sheriff framework envisions government as passive, like courts are, not active, not executive.
The modern conception of government is that it is an executive power with an interest and claim on every person and every area of life, with no liberty left for the individual, with dictates and rules and tax-funded organizations directing society in accordance with a centralized plan or scheme.
Policing arises from a humanistic perspective that allows for the control of one man over another and a hierarchical top-down society. Biblical, common law and American colonial conceptions envision a horizontal society as among equals. They envision freedom and liberty with discretion and executive decisions left to individuals and families.
To disestablish police puts a city or county back to its status quo ante, with the sheriff in charge, being elected and not appointed. Sheriffs have a common law origin and their duties are judicial primarily, in keeping with the Old Testament covenant as described in terms of the old covenant children of Israel and the Hebrew Republic.
Defunding police removes from the city a largely lawless military arm that is extra governmental, unaccountable the city council, independent pretendedly from the mayor’s authority and run by careerists and professionals who abuse their victims and operate outside of the law. Chief Roddy seems to operate with the leave of Sheriff Jim Hammond in what is effectively a gentleman’s agreement. The authority of the chief of police to enforce the criminal statute in Title 39 does not appear to be granted in the city charter, just as the charter does not allow it to enforce federal transportation law on private users of the road.
In Chattanooga police routinely ignore clear legal authority for the enforcement of the state trucking law, and impose transportation arrest on people not involved in transportation, that being the for-profit and commercial use of the roads for hire by carriers who are moving people or goods for private profit and gain in commerce, subject to the U.S. code at Title 49 of the federal transportation code.
Police also ignore the arrest by officer without a warrant law. They routinely perjure themselves, routinely involve themselves in coverups of their crimes and plant evidence. For the past 840 days they have involved themselves in traffic stops which are illegal, and since they had been put on notice in February 2018, they are performing these traffic stops with malice and evil intent, in clear violation of the state oppression statute
Peaceful intentions
➤ Council, mayor in charge — cops aren’t. “We ain’t sitting at the table with nobody unless its the mayor and the city council,
Says activist Marie Mott, a council candidate, while part of a throng surrounding a flashing police car and bellowing at two men inside, their tinted windows tightly shut.
She treads closely to making threat to public order.
“We choose to be peaceful not because we don’t have any other options,” Miss Mott says. “not because we can’t tear down businesses And things like that. We — hey — we choose peace because they expect violence us. They expect violence. They expect us to be ignorant. They expect us to do this so they don’t have to meet our demands.”
Miss Mott says Dr. Martin Luther King pocketed a .38-caliber snubby pistol for self-defense.
“He chose to be a peaceable man because they expect black people to be ignorant, and they expect us to come down here and tear shit up. But we’re not going to give them that energy. We’re going to focus all our energy into making sure we get that **** from the police. *** So please understand, we are asking you to be smart, not because we can’t tear it up,but because we want to give them what we least expect and that is an educated person, that is a people who will work together, that is a people who understand know what they want without being distracted.”
➤ Moderating tone. In a confrontation with other protesters over ideas, a woman insists that the only issue for protesters is racism, and nothing. Cameron “C-Grimey” Williams takes the bullhorn and rejects this idea, saying it is properly framed as a play of state power as against the individual. He cites a police killing of a white man with a bullet in the back.
A mere chant, but deep truth
The cry “our streets, our streets” is a genuine truth rejected by the police. The police pretend that the streets belong to the state and that no one may use the streets apart from state privilege and permission. That is where racist traffic stops occur, in the contacts of the state claim of ownership of the roads, which are defined in the statute as belonging to the people.
The transportation administrative notice project in Chattanooga, a racial reconciliation and racial reparations project by a Caucasian journalist on behalf of blacks, defies this city and county cop presumption, protected by the council and the commission.
Removing police from the life of Chattanooga would remove an important source of corrosive violence and lawless activity. Police are a taxpayer-subsidized gang and are not accountable to the city council or the mayor, who pretend that their misdeeds are somehow by an independent organization.
The removal of police removes one group of Roman soldiers of occupation to whom John said to not extort people to be content with their wages and not threaten or intimidate people. John did not tell them to quit the Roman army, but to restrain their sinful impulses to harass the israelites.
They exercise peremptory, summary, opportunity and capricious power upon the people, barking commands and demanding papers outside of the requirements probable cause or articulable suspicion.
They are an occupation army, and they are trained to view themselves in an us versus them fashion. Removing police and Chattanooga and its tax rolls would save $70 million, some of which money could be allocated by sharing with the sheriff’s department. Sheriff Hammond might want to hire some of the better officers, as he did his chief deputy, Austin Garrett, whom he drew from the police department.
Mr. Garrett gives a very strong personal impression, and would seem to be a highly qualified and good man.
Abolishing police would show that the city council and the mayor care about eliminating fraud, abuse and continuing scandal. That Ken Smith, Darren Ledford, Carol Berz, Demetrius Coonrod and others accept the continuing operation of the department is itself a scandal, the weight of which is to be fairly laid upon the people themselves for their lack of discretion in having elected them.
“Abolishing police would show that the city council and the mayor care about eliminating fraud, abuse and continuing scandal.”
The Mayor and city council don’t give a damn about eliminating the fraud that keeps a paycheck coming, preferring to wield mythical power over persons that do not comprehend that they are the power, and the corporate pretenders are the fraud.
“That Ken Smith, Darren Ledford, Carol Berz, Demetrius Coonrod and others accept the continuing operation of the department is itself a scandal, the weight of which is to be fairly laid upon the people themselves for their lack of discretion in having elected them.”
Not quite, the People of Tennessee didn’t elect a single one of these “bought and paid for” so-called representatives. They are the same powerless folks as U.S. Grant was when he rode into Paducah, Ky., with a regiment of soldiers to issue a “Proclamation” of power.
Voters can elect a captain of the pirate ship, but there is no transfer of Lawful authority, and the People still hold all power in the Tennessee Republic.
Maybe you could inform the protesters of their Lawful Authority, established in 1776. and affirmed many times over, since then.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff 118 U.S. 356 (1886)
YICK WO
v.
HOPKINS, SHERIFF.
WO LEE
v.
HOPKINS, SHERIFF.
Supreme Court of United States.
“When we consider the nature and the theory of our institutions of government, the principles upon which they are supposed *370 to rest, and review the history of their development, we are constrained to conclude that they do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power. Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is, indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal lying except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth “may be a government of laws and not of men.” For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.
There are many illustrations that might be given of this truth, which would make manifest that it was self-evident in the light of our system of jurisprudence. The case of the political franchise of voting is one. Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will, under certain conditions, nevertheless it is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.”