(Don’t) Fuck the Police

Last week, Paul sent me a link to a youtube video depicting a young man attempting to record a video, asking a police officer a polite question about unwarranted raids. The officer immediately placed the man in handcuffs, using the specious charge that he was “interfering in a police investigation.”

This was obviously an abuse of police power, but it was also stupid. The cop knew he was on camera – but behaved like an individual drunk on power who seemed to forget that his antics would quickly be posted to youtube. You can watch the video here:

The frequency of public recording of police abuse of civilians with no apparent justification is increasing. It is so common today it’s become almost normal background noise. It is also escalating. Sometimes it is unjustified trampling of civil rights of individuals for no reason besides a demonstration of power. Sometimes it includes violence against private citizens, sometimes death. Ill state again, it is an escalating problem.

A listing of examples in the body of this article would be redundant. A simple Google search for the phrase “police abuse” will provide anyone interested with up to today proof of this case. The purpose of this article is not to vilify the police. Cops are not another species, they’re just people doing a job. Some of them are your neighbors. That’s where this gets interesting. The cop who tazers your grandfather into a heart attack has a wife, and a kid, and the kid goes to school; maybe even sits in the same math class with your kid.

At this point, some screeching imbecile will pipe up and accuse me of suggesting retribution against police officers or their families. I strictly oppose violence, and in fact one of my biggest objections to organized feminism is it’s adherence to, and reliance on violence. Do not think for a millisecond that retribution against police officers or their families is acceptable.

I have made several arguments that our society is accelerating towards a police state. In Indiana – the state’s supreme court ruled on May 13 2011 than people have no right to resist UNLAWFUL police entry to their homes. I continue to hold that America is rapidly becoming a totalitarian, closed society. Towards that outcome, uniformed employees of police departments certainly play a major role. And we return to the problem of families and communities. How does an individual reconcile membership in an organization whose activities are increasingly totalitarian and brutal, with membership in the community being brutalized? For that matter, despite my own repudiation of violence as a political tactic, a cop who brutalizes the sons of his neighbors must eventually find those chickens coming home to roost.

Many police officers and police organizations have publicly supported the climate of accountability a camera-equipped public creates. Individuals employed in the job of uniformed officer don’t generally have a natural desire to beat up on unarmed citizens, but an “us-versus-them” mentality can lead to a culture of bullying among some cops. The cellphone-camera world we find ourselves in can greatly diminishes this tendency. And, It must be observed that in some communities a climate of mutual trust and respect exists between civilians and police. Public demonstrations of support for the police force in the city of Vancouver following the city’s recent Stanley Cup riot are a clear demonstration of this, and reflect the professionalism and leadership of the VPD. However, some cops – apparently don’t get it, or aren’t willing to address the fact that as police officers, they’re government employees, paid for by public taxes. These cops have apparently forgotten than when they take off their uniforms and go home, the families and loved ones they return to are the very same people being brutalized.

From a logical point of view, police officers might be motivated to avoid behavior contributing to an emerging totalitarian climate. As a uniformed and armed representative of a state which has abrogated the humans rights of it’s populace, an individual serving the role of enforcer of the state’s power risks alienation from his community, as an object of scorn and censure. For larger metropolitan centers – this possibility is diminished by the natural public anonymity of life in a large city. However, if the trend of unwarranted police violence against citizens continues to rise, cops may have considerably more to deal with than mere censure.

A system of law, with a constitution on which all other social institutions stand was never perfect, but it was a pretty good system. A culture built on a framework of legally inviolable human freedoms is our society’s alternative to resolving disputes by killing each other. It’s the innovation which sprang out of the enlightenment of the 18th century. Sadly, we have, as a society – forgotten why those legally enshrined freedoms were so important, and we are going to have to learn that lesson again, the hard way.

When human beings are brutalized in a society which lacks a legal framework for redress, a population will develop alternative forms of redress. Retributive violence is, in my opinion, a very bad option – to be avoided – but it is a probable outcome of the dysfunction and abrogation of legal and political redress of grievance.

Presently, men as a demographic in western society are increasingly marginalized, disenfranchised, abused and extorted by western institutions of government, education, employment and law. Ongoing escalation of this is a principal driver for the continued growth of the men’s right’s movement.

It’s the opinion of some men’s rights advocated – including myself – that ideological feminism, the doctrine driving this escalated apartheid against men is not a real social movement, but a cultivated tool of economic and political elites – for the purpose of creating a totalitarian society. This hypothesis is developed and defended in several separate articles on AVFM [0][1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9].

Police forces enacting unneeded violence against individuals, and abrogating the civil rights of individuals are an academically obvious element in the move from an open to a closed society. In the social climate increase of police abuses, it may only be cultural momentum and memory of a society respecting human rights that currently forestalls the emergence of a culture of brutal vendetta. An obvious fracture to our social foundation took the form on June 16 of a man who, after years of brutalization by the family court system, set himself of fire in front of a New Hampshire courthouse.

I’ll be the first to admit that while the posthumously obvious depth of Thomas Ball’s pain and anger is no surprise to me as an MRA – his answer, which was to douse himself in gasoline before publicly self immolating – this self-facing destruction was unexpected.

According to the Thomas James Ball Wikipedia article which – at the time of this writing some individuals are attempting to have deleted: “Just before 5:30 on the evening of June 15, 2011, Mr Ball doused himself with gasoline and set himself ablaze. After the fire was burning, He refused help from several nearby men. “

Ball made no sound while he was burning. A witness described “I saw a man standing on fire. He walked around a little bit, walked on to the grass, collapsed on all fours and literally sat there and burned.” [10][11]

Mainstream media have completely failed to address this event with the gravity it deserves, and in the very scant reporting on the death of Thomas Ball, have characterized him as a villain rather than the victim of a flagrantly dysfunctional and corrupt family court system. This is deliberate, and also, deeply stupid. Its the equivalent of a small child plugging his ears and singing “la la la la la” when confronted with uncomfortable news. Taken across the culture of the mainstream media, it is indictably irresponsible. Pretend that Thomas Ball was a single example of a bad crazy man, Yeah, that’ll make the problem go away.

Mr Ball, before deciding to extinguish himself in a gasoline fire wrote a detailed account of his abuse in the system of the courts, and outlined a rational imperative for venting his understandable rage onto those he saw as his tormentors. It should be understood that Mr Ball was not alone in his pain, and men victimized by the family courts are common.

Returning to the issue of police trampling on the rights, and sometimes the bodies of citizens in the communities they serve, this trend is one which might be assumed to find natural limits in a world of cell-phone cameras. The informal public oversight of police conduct provided by a populace equipped with network capable video capture devices can facilitate a climate of utmost professionalism by police – as was the case during 2010’s winter Olympic Games in Vancouver BC. During the games, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association fielded several hundred trained legal observers who videotaped and journaled many of the police’s interactions with event fans as well as protesters.

I was one of those observers, and with a few very minor exceptions – the police were exceptionally professional throughout the games, even in stressful situations of potential conflict between protest organizations and police or Olympic event organizers.

Unfortunately, some police and even police departments react to the informal public oversight of a camera-equipped public with a complete disregard for civil rights, or legal mandate as law enforcement.

A practice by police officers of arresting or detaining private citizens taking pictures or video of normal objects such as tourist attractions or notable architecture seems to be escalating. Without substantive laws or reasons to prohibit public photography, this rising trend is hard to characterize as anything except systematic public intimidation by police.

Undoubtedly, some people will be cowed and intimidated by such policies. Some people, on the other hand, are temperamentally unsuited to control by intimidation. Almost everyone has a cellphone camera, or a device capable of capture and upload of high quality video. Abuse of the public by law enforcement officials averse to accountability is very shortly going to force one of several outcomes.

The first and most obvious is that cops abusing civilians without a plausible reason will find their communities increasingly hostile while not wearing that power-conferring uniform. Its the badge, gun and uniform that gives a man or woman in uniform the power so carelessly indulged. A rotten cop is just a rotten human, armored by temporary power of that uniform. What happens when a police officer who brutalizes the public find his child refused at school, his commerce refused in local business? What happens when brutality is re payed to the family of a brutal police officer?

I’ll state this explicitly. I abhor and condemn violence in any situation besides immediate defense against injury or assault. This is a bad outcome to be avoided.

That the apparent tendency of police to abuse the public may have such consequences to members of police forces in their civilian lives suggests strongly that philosophy of an advocate for men’s rights; is natural fit for uniformed employees of police forces. The men’s rights movement is a nonviolent political movement criticizing the marginalization of male identity, and opposing the growing legal cementing of a violent totalitarian state. Gender quotas and affirmative action aside, cops doing the heavy and dangerous job of real police work are still mostly men.

Suppression of the rights of individuals, and abrogation of human rights has a real, and immediate consequence to individuals employed in police forces. If you wear a uniform and beat on, pepper spray, tazer or otherwise brutalize the citizens who are your neighbors – some of them will, inevitably repay that brutality to you, or to your families.

I say again, this is a bad outcome, and I do not support violence.

Police – as a culture will have to do one of two things. They will have to de-escalate the trend towards brutalizing the public, or, they will have to do their jobs wearing masks.

The increased use of SWAT tactics and armor for police duties performed a decade ago by officers in standard non-armored uniforms seems to point towards the mask-wearing alternative. This is a bad trend.

It’s bad, because if police continue to escalate abuse of the public, and dehumanize themselves with body armor and masks, identification of police by the public as fellow citizens -as fellow human beings, will become a relic of the past.

In cinema, writers and producers use costumes employing masks to de-humanize the bad guys. This serves the purpose of making their killing palatable for a G-rating entertainment audience.

In George Lucas’s original Star Wars – hundreds of white-armored and masked stormtroopers are killed, and as far back as that film’s release in 1978, nobody minded the slaughter.

Cops brutalizing the public in face-masked riot gear will protect the identities of those individuals. It wont protect them from a brutalized public with no more legal recourse, and only force in reply.

Adam Kostakis


Paul Elam

Dan Moore

[10] – deleted (censored) on wikipedia – here’s a copy:

  • Eff’d Off

    Mr Dexter – excellent.

    A uniform or a muff, they’re both conduits to power.

    • http://none Atlas Reloaded

      and at times resemble one another.

      ( some cops are real pussies)

  • Rey

    People mostly fail to grasp that the world has always been and will be driven by a pretty brief set of primitive factors, one of which is violence. Society roughly consists of three categories of citizens: cattle, dogs, and wolves. Cattle instinctively shun violence and try to weed violent ones from among their number. Dogs hold the monopoly to guard, skin and feed on cattle. Wolves are dogs denied their natural right to feed on dogs, and therefore outlawed. Even as they are skinned by dogs, cattle will report each other to dogs. Russia has seen such times. China has seen such times. Every other nation sees such times now and then. America’s turn now. This is how I see the Tom Ball tragedy: it is highly symptomatic.

  • Rey

    I mean: “Wolves are dogs denied their natural right to feed on dogs, and therefore outlawed.”

  • Bev

    The US land of the free ??????
    The other night I watched a US program called Cops. This program follows police around showing their work. Man oh man what an eye opener! While some investigation and arrests were for real offences many were for minor traffic violations. A man pulled over for a light not working. Pull him out of the car handcuff him pat him down and empty his pockets, sit him in the gutter. Then proceed to ransack the car looking for drugs or what ever. Then they ask for the drivers licence which he has. Then issue a citation and caution him not to drive until light fixed and uncuff him. Why the cuffs? Another case, police are tipped off that a man who has breached a DVO is staying at his friends house. Turn up and arrest the man. Then ask the owner why the man was there. Answer he had no where to go so he was putting him up for a few days. Arrest the owner for harbouring a fugitive despite the owner not knowing his friend had breached a DVO. Woman pulled up same treatment handcuffs etc. Find pills in the car she says perscription, test for drug negative (it is a perscription) arrest her for not having the script with her. Pull up interstate drive same treatment, find container with three balls of hashish. Mans says he has letter from doctor authorizing him to take it for medical condition. Police not interested doctors authorizion not legal in this state. No wonder your jails are overflowing.

    • Promoman

      That’s routine over here. You should check this site: You’ll shit yourself guaranteed.

  • Zuberi

    For the past 20 years police officers have been nothing more than storm troopers.

  • codebuster

    But surely, if most police officers are men, then their hostility to feminized society is inevitable. It is not clear the extent to which we can expect a police officer to distinguish between feminists, criminals, politicians, citizens. Perhaps all that a less sophisticated policeman might see are 1) the criminals that hate all law enforcement officers and 2) the civilians that voted for a culture that hates men. Why should he not hate everyone else back, across the board?

  • Eff’d Off

    OT, I am wanting to upload a drawing but can’t. Is something your end with the blog software there not “clicked” or something ?

  • Eff’d Off

    Ok, uploaded now.

    [img] Riotous gear-1.jpg[/img]

  • Herbal Essence

    They want us to retaliate. They’re trying to push us to the point where the straw breaks the camel’s back. If we don’t do it, they’ll probably start making false flag attacks.

    It’s all about justifying the elimination of civil liberties.

  • James Cook

    Confucius (ignored in practice by today’s Communist China) said the most effective kind of law is one that is easy for the people to follow. Correlatively he said a government that really serves the people will rely on – because it needs – little or no physical force.

  • Stu

    If you want to live in a society that has any sort of rule of law, then you support the use of violence. Without violence, there is no law. You think about that, I’ll bet a lot of people are thinking I’m wrong, but I’m not wrong and if you think carefully about it, it will be apparent to you.

    Behind every single law, every single rule that you have to follow, there has to be a punishment of some sort for not following it. Although most people may elect of their own free will to follow laws that exist for the purpose of banning behavior that is detrimental to society, and indeed, society could not function without, there will always be people that will not… amount of counselling or whatever…will prevent that. So that’s why we have non violent options, like fines, imprisonment, all sorts of legal sanctions and orders of specific performance that can be leveled against you for non compliance with the laws.

    The thing you have to realise is that without the violence to back up those non violent remedies……they aren’t worth Jack Shit. In fact….you can’t arrest me without violence… can’t take me to court… can’t send me to jail….you can’t take me out of my house… can cancel my licence, car registration….but I can just say fuck you….and drive anyway. I can walk into shops and take what I want….and just walk out…..and if somebody isn’t going to physically stop me……all the fines you send me and all the notices to appear in court are not worth anything. The only reason people pay fines is because something worse will happen if they don’t…..and the only reason they co-operate with the something worse is because something worse again will happen if they don’t. At the end of the road…..the remedy is violence….a cop comes to put handcuffs on me and arrest me……I’m only going to let him do that because he can tazer me or shot me or bash me……If he can’t do any of those things….I’m just going to give him and finger…..probably take his gun….his wallet….and maybe his police car.

    To all the pacifists out there. The only reason you can live the life of a pacifist and denounce all violence, and not be trasgressed against everytime you step out the door, is because there are others will use violence against those that trangress against you.

    The deal works like this. You give up all rights to use violence for any reason at all and you give the State the monopoly to act in that capacity on your behalf. The state then protects your rights to everything, your life, your property, privacy…etc etc.

    I got news for you. The State isn’t doing that….especially not if you’re a man. The contract is void as far as I’m concerned

    I will never say I’m against the use of violence…I’m against the inappropiate use of violence. If someone comes and steals my car… this world….today… going after them and finding them and shooting them down like a dog is only inappropriate because I can call the police to go and do that for me. You think calling the police is non violent action, but what will they do when they find him…..arrest him and use violence if he doesn’t go along with that. In a world without such a remedy… bet your arse I’m going after the guy who stole me car.

    • Stu

      In fact, it’s the State that is the guy that stole your car….and your house, and you income, and your kids.

    • James Cook

      Stu, I’ve just given your comment a green thumb as I agree with most of it. But maybe I can add a bit to it, from my professional expertise in legal philosophy and comparative law. (By the way, although I’m an academic I’m NOT a conventional one, ie I’m not a hack whose idea of “scholarship” is to crank out publications that no one reads. Most of my “academic” experience has been on the ground, in often dangerous situations in non-Western countries.)

      Anyway, a bit more on the Rule of Law:

      It’s partly true that the realistic potential recourse to violence DOES in fact underlie every functioning Rule of Law. This is in fact why the citizens’ right to bear arms is so important. So we’re on the same page there.

      However, Confucius was correct (and his near-contemporary Aristotle said similar things) in perceiving that the BEST means of a “rule of law” is based MAINLY upon the consent of the governed – cf the Declaration of Independence.

      But then I think we agree that the “consent of the governed” needs to be backed up by the citizens’ ultimate recourse to violent resistance if all other means fail to keep the State in line.

      Personally, when I was teaching Comparative Law in some non-Western tyrannical states (not too different from Western tyrannical states anymore!), I posited the following shorthand scheme of the different levels of “rule of law” versus “police state” versus “total tyranny”:

      1. Rule of law: Based principally upon the consent of the governed (Jefferson’s phrase); it’s ultimately backed up by potential recourse to violence, but the MAIN reason why it functions is because of mutual consent based on common values, common first principles such as “a man’s home is his castle” (cf America’s Fourth Amendment, which has been abolished de facto)

      2. Police State: Some nominal rules still exist, but they’re enforced arbitrarily – IMMEDIATELY THROUGH PHYSICAL FORCE – by agents of the State. In my opinion, this is where Communist China has been for the past 30 years, and it’s what America has become in the past decade.

      3. Total tyranny: No one even pays any token respect to any written laws; the power of the State is absolute, as in North Korea or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

      In my opinion – based on personal experience including in some former and current Communist states – today there’s very little difference between China and America, both Police States. I suggest Switzerland as one of the few remaining models of a true Rule of Law state today.

      • James Cook

        PS, in light of my above comment, here’s one of my favorite cinematic scenes – from the unfairly scorned movie “Revolution”, a historically realistic depiction of the origins of the USA – vis a vis how THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is ESSENTIAL FOR ANY FREE NATION!

        This scene depicts the American victory at Yorktown in 1781. And yes, as I’m a seventh-generation American – with two forefathers in the so-called “Civil War”, and even though I’m a man of the Cultural South, I revere my two gg-grandfathers who fought…

        … one was wounded, the other died in combat) in the tyrant Lincoln’s Army, DESPITE the fact that my “Yankee” forefathers (Pennsylvanians, who were NOT “Yankees”, they were German and Irish immigrants who were FORCED into Lincoln’s Army!) fought on the WRONG side of Natural Law and the Constitution!…

        …as I was saying, HERE is a historically realistic depiction of how and why the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS is ESSENTIAL for any free nation!:

        And now slightly off-topic, I send THIS song to any of my AVFM Brothers who, like me, are neo-Confederates. I’m a native of Southern Pennsylvania – born near the Mason-Dixon Line – but when General Lee’s Army “invaded” Pennsylvania in 1863, many Pennsylvanians came out to cheer them as liberators from Lincoln’s tyranny:

        • Mr. J

          The South’s side was about “states rights”, one “right” of which was the “right” to own slaves………..whatever other righteous points thay may have had, that could not stand….Their side was wrong.

        • Patrice Stanton


          First: I’m (Connecticut) Yankee by birth (back to late 1600’s), but Texan/’Southern’ by choice.

          Yes, I agree, ‘Slavery’ = Evil, but a Tyrant’s war that killed over 1/2 million ‘Americans’ (not to mention the paths of destruction & desolation left behind) was a GREATER Evil. Ask yourself, as the following author does: what other ‘western nation’ required such bloodshed to end the African slave trade?

          For the less propagandized side of the ‘Civil War’…Please take the small bit of time for this easy read (it’s heavily footnoted) :”The Real Lincoln,” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Or anything by this author, in my opinion.

  • keyster

    Communities use traffic enforcement and “the war on drugs” as fronts to justify keeping a police force intact, until or unless there’s some sort of broad civil unrest.

    Two things drive cops, EGO and FEAR.
    Other than that, they’re fairly simple minded.
    Knowing this and using it, has gotten me out of a few jams.

  • Promoman

    Great piece. This harkens back to what I’ve said before about the pass that police get for their actions which I call the Pork Pass. This pass barely loses the match up against the Pussy Pass because cops themselves are ultimately some of the pawns employed when the Pussy Pass comes into play. Police get a predetermined benefit of the doubt no matter how much or how little evidence and/or plausibility is present in any exchange with a citizen or even another authority figure. Look at Dick Chaney. Once, he was one of the three most powerful men on the planet and he was grilled when he shot his companion in the face while hunting a few years back. A cop can beat or kill someone, lie about it, get a paid vacation at home, and have the whole incident chalked up to the cost of doing business. Because of the dangerous nature of the job, it’s understandable why cops are granted such authority. However, it’s just as reasonable that they be held accountable when they choose to fuck around with that authority. To quote Spiderman, “With great power, comes great responsibility.” Throw in the race factor, and things get even uglier. As it stands, if Barney Fife decides to get Vic Mackey on someone, he may get rewarded for it. I think people should check out this site: It’s a national registry of police misconduct that has shit that’ll make you bounce off the walls. There’s stories of cops pulling Chris Hansens and all kinds of other fuckery that goes underreported.

  • Opt-Out

    Law enforcement in my humble option is not to be trusted. They are not there to help you, especially men. Most are white knight types searching for attention they could not gain otherwise. I have friends who are cops and they are also good guys but even they agree that your best bet is to have as little contact with law enforcement as possible. Personally I view them as gun toting revenue collectors slowing bleeding the law biding portion of society. Most would tell you they would rather be locking up the bad guys but truthfully if your a man YOU ARE THE BAD GUY and they view you as a threat. Fucked at birth so to speak. The worst type of law enforcement professional is a female. Talk about entitled, they are the worst. I once dated a female cop and let me say this was long before I knew what I know not, talk about playing with fire. She was a complete sociopath who displayed a complete lack of empathy. She did everything better no matter the task. We spit up because I out shot her in a 10 ring qualifying. I thought the bitch was gonna cap me afterwords. Personal note, you don’t break up with a female cop unless you want fireworks. Had to speak with her supervisor and threaten legal action to get her to go away. Your best bet is to stay clear of the badge.

    Did you know you were going 25 in a 20?

    • Promoman

      I can believe it about female cops. If the Pork & Pussy Pass do a Hall & Oates duet, you’re fucked.

  • Nick S

    Stu, well said. Pacifism is not a sustainable position in either domestic or international affairs. However much violence may be unpleasant, it is sometimes necessary to deal with an aggressor. Sometimes you have to fight a war to keep the peace. Pacifism is a luxury of those who feel sufficiently secure to not have to face the harsher realities

    It is only due to past acts of violent civil disobedience that we live in a society where we have any rights at all. If people had never fought back against state tyranny, we would still be living under an absolutist rule where the king could order the execution of anyone who offended him. Anyone who enjoys any rights or due process at all is a beneficiary of past acts of violent civil disobedience.

    Fighting back against abuse of state power is merely self-defense. The idea that individuals have the obligation to meekly submit to having their lives destroyed by state sanctioned thuggery is itself absurd and offensive. I suspect that part of the reason governments are becoming more authoritarian is simply that they believe most people, men in particular, are too pussy to fight back, and hence they can get away with more. It is a kind of shit-testing of the populace. That is, see how much abuse you can get away with before you provoke a reaction.

    That is why marginalizing and dispossessing men is such an effective means of social control. If men are marginalized and demoralized, who will be left to fight back against abuses of power?

  • Raven001

    Well, ladies and gentlemen.
    If you consider yourself an activist you will not buy another Apple product.
    The next iBrick err, iPhone and iPod touch scheduled for release will have a feature that will allow these fascist brown-shirts to remotely disable the photo, video, and audio recording capability of the device they want you to pay for.
    Thank-you, Steve Jobs and Mr. Ballmer for making it easier for power-tripping assholes hiding behind a badge to abuse their position of trust with impunity.
    Vote with your feet people and send a clear message, “mess with our freedom and you with be repaid with abyssmal failure”

  • giovannidannato

    Cops are typically straight shooters who conform with orthodox cultural expectations and have typical simplistic Hollywood views of right and wrong. They are often anal ex-mil types who feel warm and fuzzy inside when following procedures to the letter. They are disciples of order.

    Many who know me in real life consider me an eccentric and because of this, cops instinctively dislike me.
    Experience has taught me that cops are far more than law enforcers. They enforce unspoken social laws and cultural norms just as vigorously.
    I’ve had several encounters with the cops in the last few years and all my ‘offenses’ were related to unorthodox behaviors on my part.

    Cops recognize passive aggressive drop-out type behaviors from men when they see them. They don’t think it out or philosophize, but their intuition tells them something is out of place.
    And the converse pattern is true. Those who don’t fit in with the orthodox blue pill culture tend to be wary of cops. Something in them knows that it is not enough to abide by the letter of the law.