Occupy Phoenix Flier: When Should You Shoot A Cop is Confirmed – Author Larken Rose, CopBlock

Hot Air has confirmed that Occupy Phoenix has distributed a flier instructing ‘occupiers’ when it is time to shoot the police. A Homeland Security alert was issued, based on the flier. The flier is attributed to Larken Rose, CopBlock.org. Larken Rose is identified as a contributor to CopBlock and the author of When Should You Shoot a Cop, and the identification comes with another missive: When Should You Shoot A Patriot? The police stopped by Larken Rose’s house. He referred to them as “jack-booted swine.” In the meantime, the law-abiding citizens of Phoenix are trying to go about their business as the ‘occupiers’ just might be considering killing the police. Or maybe the ‘occupiers’ wanted nothing to do with Larken Rose and he just dumped his work on the streets?

The bottom-line, of the rhetoric in the flier seems to be, you either let the law have it’s way with you or you stop them from doing so – (quoting here) “which will almost always require killing them.

When to Shoot a Cop (thanks to The Blaze) and here (below are snippets).

If politicians think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law,” they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law,” then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny…

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude…

There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of ”government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The message from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A”–even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side–you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak your mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL ”government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you…

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

Read the Homeland Security alert, portions of the flier and commentary at Hot Air.  Also more about Larken Rose at Verum Serum.

Here’s the shame of this: there are some complaints in Rose’s writings that have merit. There are problems that many of us recognize and know are valid, but they have nothing to do with murdering police, but everything to do with reining in government.

Linked at THE SENTRY JOURNAL – thank you John!

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

 

One Pingback/Trackback

  • This is simply reprehensible.

  • Pingback: Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs | SENTRY JOURNAL()

  • susan

    I don’t think this is representative of the movement. It stands for Peace. This is the type of issue that is underminding the real issues that need to be addressed. It is not what the originator had intended!

    • Susan, I covered this movement beginning in New York City before there were Nike’s on the ground. I agree that what is happening now, was not the intention, but it was naive to think it would not happen. There is no call for smaller government, only bring down Wall Street, make the rich pay, destroy capitalism. We can’t expect much good to come from that primary call. The rich pay create the jobs and write the pay checks and it’s just that simple. No country in the world has even close to the lifestyle American’s have because even in Socialism, there is always a Barack Obama at the top.

  • Steven Wayne Lytle

    No one here has addressed the content of Rose’s article, which I accept in toto. Refusing to consider that police might be wrong is part of what brought us to where we are now, with police and judges and politicians answerable to no one.

    • Steven Wayne Lytle, I did address it. Read my last paragraph.

      How about holding Democrats responsible for no tort reform, and how about removing judges from the bench who let sexual predators go free? There are many, many things we can do, but can’t do them with today’s Democrats in Congress.

      For years we have needed these changes, but it wasn’t until the Tea Parties began that anyone had a voice.

      • Ashley

        Amen! I work as a police dispatcher and I can’t even tell you how many times we have had people go to jail for a short period of time and then they are right back at it. We once had a guy shoot and kill someone and he was out of jail after a week.

        • WorBlux

          If the jails weren’t full of non-violent drug offenders, and those with minor parole violation, then you might have room for the violent people.

    • Ashley

      I’m sorry, but what world are you living in? There are constantly officers losing their badges because of unbecoming behavior. What is truly vile is that this worthless piece of crap is doing, is okaying killing officers that are coming into contact with you for a reason. The solution is simple, don’t do anything illegal and you won’t have to be in contact with the police. I would love to see how Rose does without any officers protecting her and putting THEIR lives on the line to do so.

  • WorBlux

    “Here’s the shame of this: there are some complaints in Rose’s writings that have merit. There are problems that many of us recognize and know are valid, but they have nothing to do with murdering police, but everything to do with reining in government.”

    All of the founders believed that there was a point when you should start shooting cops, and most of them actually did so in the revolution. The point is if your answer to the question is not something other than never, you are a slave.

    That time generally is not now, but it may be coming.

    • WorBlux, I can’t find anyplace I’ve used the word “never.” I’m talking about our current situation, considering anything reported, this movement should have nothing to do with killing police.