tyranny

A man kidnaps and rapes a 14 year old girl. He is arrested and released on bond. A condition of the bond was that the man was to have no contact with the victim or her family.

That same night, the girl is again found to be missing at 1 am. The police and the girl’s father were looking for her. The father found her first. In a truck. In a park. With her rapist.

An argument ensued, shots rang out, and the rapist was dead.

The cops arrested the dad for first degree murder, and the dad is now out on bond. The cops said that there was no reason to shoot the man, because they were on the case.

“This guy that preyed upon their daughter was released on bond, and we had stopped him that night and got him with her,” the Sheriff said. “That bond would have been revoked. He would have never got out of jail. None of the bond companies would have let him out. We wouldn’t let him out.”

The mother of the child said that she and her husband were in fear that the man was going to murder their daughter.

“We absolutely called 911 during the entire event,” she wrote. “We had no idea this man was in contact with our child again. He was waiting 6-9 felonies for what he did, not 2. He was looking at the rest of his pathetic life in jail, and our daughter was the only witness.”

“Some things we will never know, but we know that the police department afforded this predator privacy they did not give our family,” she wrote. “I’m deeply offended by the way this was handled by the county sheriff’s office.”

The prosecutor has not yet filed any charges. Gofundme is not permitting the father to raise money for his defense, because they claim to not allow collections for legal defense of an alleged violent crime.

The child’s mother claims to know why the police are so determined to arrest her husband: the dead rapist was a retired police chief and former school resource officer from Indiana:

[The mother] said the Lonoke County Sheriff’s Office’s actions are proof that the sheriff “supports predators” and that he will prosecute those who are trying to protect their families.

I am not sure you will be able to assemble a jury that will find him guilty, unless the court wants to cheat the system and prevent the defense from mentioning the events that led up to the shooting.

I do know that in Florida, the law says that you can use lethal force to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony, which includes sexual battery and kidnapping. Of course that won’t stop a crooked cop or politically motivated prosecutor from charging you anyhow, leaving you penniless. Ask George Zimmerman how that works.

From the Interwebs comes this notice:

The wannabe dictator cites the state law 870.044 almost verbatim, but leaves out the important part:

870.044 Automatic emergency measures.—Whenever the public official declares that a state of emergency exists, pursuant to s. 870.043, the following acts shall be prohibited during the period of said emergency throughout the jurisdiction:

(1) The sale of, or offer to sell, with or without consideration, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

(2) The intentional display, after the emergency is declared, by or in any store or shop of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

(3) The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or person in military service acting in the official performance of her or his duty.

Note that the pertinent part was left out- the state of emergency has to be declared pursuant to 870.043. What does that particular law have to say on the subject? State statute 870.043 reads:

870.043 Declaration of emergency.—Whenever the sheriff or designated city official determines that there has been an act of violence or a flagrant and substantial defiance of, or resistance to, a lawful exercise of public authority and that, on account thereof, there is reason to believe that there exists a clear and present danger of a riot or other general public disorder, widespread disobedience of the law, and substantial injury to persons or to property, all of which constitute an imminent threat to public peace or order and to the general welfare of the jurisdiction affected or a part or parts thereof, he or she may declare that a state of emergency exists within that jurisdiction or any part or parts thereof.

The state of emergency in Florida wasn’t due to an act of violence or a flagrant and substantial defiance of, or resistance to, a lawful exercise of public authority. It was due to an approaching hurricane. Therefore, the entire declaration of this tyrant was unlawful.

This is what tyrants do- they twist the law to suit their own purposes.

Peter and Aesop both ask the same question: Should the government ‘let’ people build a house in an area known to be prone to disasters like hurricanes? The reasons that they give:

• it costs local and state authorities huge amounts to maintain access to such areas to protect them, fire and rescue departments to aid those living there during disasters, etc.;
• Insurance companies typically won’t insure against hazards that are so easily foreseen, meaning that either they have to be compelled to do so through legislation, and/or subsidized to do so from taxpayers’ coffers, and/or have state-aided insurance plans such as flood insurance to cover the risks they will not.
• There’s all the infrastructure (roads, power, water, sewage processing and disposal, maintenance, etc.).  That’s not just capital cost to provide them all, but ongoing running costs year in, year out.
• There’s the expense of subsidizing and/or providing insurance coverage.
• There’s the burden of restoring services to such areas when natural disasters disrupt them (which also means the resources devoted to doing that can’t be used in other areas where they may be needed, imposing additional delays and costs).
• There’s the additional bureaucracy and complexity of legislation and/or regulation accompanying all of the above.

These positions seem reasonable. They are also tyrannical and wrong. If we were to grant government the power to declare that you can’t live somewhere because it is too expensive to provide services there, then you open the door to government getting involved and ruling over your entire life.

Owning guns is too dangerous, and therefore illegal. So is smoking, drinking alcohol, eating salt, eating fatty foods, and not exercising 1 hour per day. SCUBA and sky diving, contact sports, owning a car that is capable of speeds more than 40 miles per hour, as well as roller skates, bicycles, and air conditioning (Climate Change!) are all dangerous.

Governments were created, among other things, to provide for the common defense. Services like fire, police, and rescue are properly part of that response. Don’t tell me how we should have for profit fire and rescue services- we tried that, and it plain doesn’t work. (Seriously- read the link before you comment)

Water, power, roads, and all of those other services are paid for by companies that have been granted a monopoly by the government. They aren’t paid for by taxes in many cases, but by fees passed on to consumers.

Back to the subject- when the government decides that it’s most cost effective to make everyone live in tenements in downtown Detroit, come back and explain to me how you didn’t see that coming. But hey, you can sign on to the Green New Deal if you prefer.