Stop Resisting!

When LVPD Officer Derek Colling attacked Mitchell Crooks he senselessly kicked him in the face, breaking Crooks’ nose.  Additional injuries included a deviated septum and a chest wall injury (possibly from broken ribs).  While doing this, Colling repeatedly shouts, “stop resisting!” Mitchell Crooks committed no crime, but he was guilty of “contempt of cop”.  The penalty for such is harassment, arrest, brutality, false charges, or worse.

Over and over, when I see yet another video of LEOs arresting someone for contempt of cop, I hear them yell, “Stop resisting!” Inevitably, the victim, who is confused about why they are being arrested, keeps saying, “I’m not resisting! Why are you arresting me? I didn’t do anything illegal!” And still, no matter what, the cop shouts, “STOP RESISTING!” Obviously, this is often a cynical ploy to set up a narrative for a potential jury. Most jurors are easily led and tend to trust the word of police, until given a reason not to. So, with a video being a little jumpy, the audio not being 100% clear, events happening out of frame, you’ll have at least a few jurors who hear “stop resisting!” and consider that evidence that the detainee was actually resisting. But even more than that, I think some cops get a sadistic thrill out of brutalizing someone and fucking with their head by screaming, “Stop resisting!” at them when they aren’t actually resisting.  Pure PsyOps. “Stop resisting!” It’s good that Chief Deputy District Attorney Christopher Laurent recognized that  Mitchell Crooks committed no crime and had him released from jail, but why hasn’t DA Laurent filed charges against Derek Colling?  If he isn’t severely punished for brutalizing an innocent bystander—for any of us civilians, the penalty for such would involve prison time, most likely, and we definitely would never be allowed to walk around with a gun—then when will cops ever learn that photography is not a crime.


Moved from blogspot

I’m in the process of moving my articles from blogspot to here.  Update: Some articles haven’t shown up yet, but I’m working on it.

A little puppy cuteness to keep you entertained in the meantime:

Lilly in her narcoleptic phase

Our newest dog, Lilly, when she was tiny and narcoleptic


My earliest memories are from the time my family lived in USAF housing in a suburb of Tokyo (Chofu/Fuchu). Before moving to Tokyo, we were in Okinawa, where my dad was part of the team to help oversee transfer to the Japanese government. He was very impressed with how prepared their people were for every meeting. My parents had great praise for the hard working professionalism and civilized nature of the Japanese. We kids loved watching “Utala Man” cartoons and going to the Yomiyuri Land amusement park.

Billy Beck has expressed similar praise over the years, having worked there a number of times.

It’s heartbreaking to see the devastation, but important to realize that life goes on in most of Japan and they’re quite civilized not to engage in looting.



I criticized Corcoran on the comment section of his article on the day of the shooting. However, on Jan 12, he posted a “flow chart” (his website is down, but you can see it on the RSS feed):

TJIC: Next question: do you think that a schizophrenic individual shooting up a politician, a judge, and a dozen civilians in Arizon served any purpose at all, or advanced civil rights in any way?

If you answer “yes”, stop here. Your conception of “useful” differs radically from TJIC’s.

Step 6: Congratulations – you agree with TJIC that the Arizona shooting was a tragedy, of which no good will come.

Next question: do you think that an armed revolution, including assassinations, is morally legitimate in the US today?

If you answer “Yes”, stop here.

If you answer “No”, congratulations, you agree with TJIC.

If he had said that on the day of the shooting, I probably wouldn’t have bothered to comment.

Radley Balko:But he isn’t remotely libertarian, an ideology where the non-initiation of force is a pretty fundamental principle.”

As I’ve argued here and elsewhere, I think the most effective action at this point is time is massive, non-violent civil disobedience. Not because I think that violence against particular individuals in government is an aggressive initiation of force—as has been documented on this website and elsewhere, many in the government have been employing the use of force against people who have done nothing to hurt anyone else—but because (1) such an act will be widely perceived as an initiation of force, ignoring what the government has done to people, and (2) the net result will be a pointless waste, accomplishing nothing positive.

But at some point, if the government gets sufficiently awful and if peaceful attempts fail, I will change my mind about engaging in violence, as was done in the American Revolution, so long as attacks don’t involve the killing of innocents. I hope like crazy that we never get to that point in my lifetime.

With that in mind: I am TJIC.

Political Violence

In response to the ghouls who are trying to exploit the mass murder at the political gathering in AZ, blaming the politicians and pundits for the tone of their rhetoric being too combative:

Yes, the quality of political debate is abysmally bad. That is a direct result of how the exercise of political power has more intensely affected the lives of citizens. Voters recognize how all the government programs, laws, regulations, taxes, etc. are dominating their lives and threatening their futures more and more each day, so they are understandably alarmed and getting more desperate to stop the “other side” from taking advantage of them.

“All of this is the predictable result of putting moral questions up to a vote, of rulers making election contests into mock battles, pitting one “side” against another. (Warren mentions the “Coke vs. Pepsi” mentality, which is spot on.)

“Around the 2010 election, I read somewhere [added: here via Beck] that an election is nothing more than two or more armies getting dressed up, marching to the battle field, then counting which side has the most soldiers and awarding the spoils of victory to that side without actually drawing blood. And, as Billy Beck has pointed out for many years: “All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.”

“My solution? Stop voting. Stop giving your permission to politicians to wield power over your neighbors. Work with your neighbors to solve problems via reason and persuasion, instead of resorting to force. Government, by definition, is the use of force.

(My comment here and here.)

I predict that the politicians who win the elections tonight will all violate their promises. They will exploit their power to give one group special privileges at the expense of all of our individual rights. It looks quite a bit like 1994 and we all saw how the “Contract With America” turned out to be mostly useless.

Projecting forward, I think Obama’s people are going to exploit the image of Republicans as being obstructionists to try to boost his ratings for 2012. And, there’s a good chance the GOP will offer up yet another pathetic candidate who will sap the enthusiasm of voters who would have voted against Obama.

Never underestimate the ability of Republicans to screw up any advantages they have at a given point in time.

But that’s just one reason I have no intention of setting foot inside a polling station again. Richard Nikoley and Mike Soja offer some roundups of arguments against voting.

Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day.

Apparently, Anita Hill turned that message over to the campus DPS, who forwarded it to the FBI.


I don’t know if Anita Hill lied to the Judiciary Committee two decades ago, but bringing her forward to make a public spectacle was inappropriate. They had interviewed her, found no real evidence, and should have dropped it at that, regardless of Nina Totenberg. And, while I don’t agree with most of the Democrats’ political objections to Clarence Thomas, I have other objections to many of his opinions, particularly the law-and-order cases when he helps to winnow away individual rights.