Home / #Solutions / It’s Time to Imagine a Post-Police World — Here’s Why Abolishing the Police is Not a Crazy Idea

It’s Time to Imagine a Post-Police World — Here’s Why Abolishing the Police is Not a Crazy Idea

abolishing

Are police necessary? Although this existential question often produces a knee-jerk ‘of course they are, who would protect us?’ a growing call for the abolition of police — and working examples to back it up — deserves more than scornful dismissal, particularly amid epidemic-level violence by agents of the state.

Police are under no obligation to protect the public they putatively serve — a series of state and Supreme Court decisions stretching back more than three decades indisputably establish this fact — so the lingering question, ‘who will protect us?’ is of no consequence to the case for dismantling every police department in the nation.

On the contrary, police kill, maim, intimidate, harass, and generally brutalize the citizenry with alarming frequency — and rarely face consequences beyond a paid vacation farcically termed ‘administrative leave’ for doing so.

Rather than fight and solve violent crimes, police act as little more than heavily militarized code-enforcers, or as David Graeber of the London School of Economics aptly terms, “bureaucrats with weapons” — protecting us from broken tail lights, missing front license plates, and imperfect lane changes more often than from robbery, homicide, and rape.

Give police the equipment and weapons of war under the premise of fighting terrorism, when terrorism is all but nonexistent, and predictably, they will go to war. As Abraham Maslow posited in 1966 in a concept known as the law of the instrument, “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

We, the citizenry, are not nails to be forcibly and violently coerced into submission over the tiniest of nonviolent and inconsequential infractions — but, whether or not we’re inclined to admit as much, that summarizes our current situation in the eyes of an overbearing state and its criminalization of, in essence, daily life.

How this police state cinched a noose-like grip on the nation, at this late date, arguably matters little in deference to the urgency it must be addressed. And while solutions run the gamut from individual officer liability insurance to the use of body cameras, forcing an on-call policy akin to that of fire departments to an overhaul of training policies, as it becomes apparent nothing will be done, the larger aforementioned existential question must come into play.

Are police a necessary element in an ordered, peaceful society?

In short, the answer is no — absolutely not — largely because police spend such little time policing anything other than ridiculous laws created solely for the purpose of revenue generation to justify their own existence.

Graeber writes:

“The police spend very little of their time dealing with violent criminals — indeed, police sociologists report that only about 10% of the average police officer’s time is devoted to criminal matters of any kind. Most of the remaining 90% is spent dealing with infractions of various administrative codes and regulations: all those rules about how and where one can eat, drink, smoke, sell, sit, walk, and drive. If two people punch each other, or even draw a knife on each other, police are unlikely to get involved. Drive down the street in a car without license plates, on the other hand, and the authorities will show up instantly, threatening all sorts of dire consequences if you don’t do exactly what they tell you.

“The police, then, are essentially just bureaucrats with weapons. Their main role in society is to bring the threat of physical force — even, death — into situations where it never would have been otherwise invoked, such as the enforcement of civic ordinances about the sale of untaxed cigarettes.”

This overcriminalization of, well, living, has exploded prison populations and adversarial policing to a profoundly negative effect. In the beginning of 2015, the number of federal criminal laws exceeded 4,500 — over 27,000 pages of United States federal code — with Congress creating crimes where none previously existed at a rate of 50 new criminal laws each year. And that only covers federal law — add state and local criminal codes and it’s estimated the average American unknowingly commits three felonies every day.

According to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, “our nation’s addiction to criminalization backlogs our judiciary, overflows our prisons, and forces innocent individuals to plead guilty not because they actually are, but because exercising their constitutional right to a trial is prohibitively expensive and too much of a risk.”

These purported crimes, however, largely have nothing at all to do with true harm committed against another — though brutal responses by police and filled-beyond-capacity prisons would have you thinking otherwise. With just 5 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. incarcerates no less than 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. This stunning surplus of criminal law, coupled with the government’s military equipment giveaway to law enforcement departments which have little need for it, has put the populace in the altogether dangerous position of being 58 times more likely to be killed by an officer of the law than by a terrorist.

Once an individual has a criminal record, possible future interactions with police become a risky endeavor, indeed — it already doesn’t take evidence of wrongdoing to put an officer on guard, but a criminal blip on someone’s record during an otherwise routine traffic stop creates wholly unnecessary tension where none should exist. Especially if that crime was collecting rainwater, living off-grid, keeping rabbits in the backyard, or any of the untold number of patently absurd behaviors now deemed verboten by the state — and the scope of this article won’t even touch on the untold tragedies fueled by the failed war on drugs.

Loosely in line with the law of the instrument, citizens have become opportunities for revenue generation, as police patrol the streets searching for anyone stepping out of line with some misbegotten code. We are little more than adversarial dollar signs to these roving bands of armed enforcers of extraneous laws — targets to be plundered and pillaged, harassed and shaken down, to generate revenue and therefore justify the continuation of Big Government.

READ MORE:  Newly Released State Dept Email Proves Everything Clinton Said About Her Server is a LIE

In the absence of policing, justice, prison, and criminal code reform, several viable options present themselves for consideration — perhaps most imperatively among them, the complete abolishment of police.

To posit the populace would devolve into chaos and violence without police departments ignores the chaos and violence wrought by police — not to mention the very real historical proof a correctly and fully-functioning society can and will police itself.

First, consider the sizable financial feedback loop perpetuated by an excessively intrusive nanny state and its armed agents of enforcement. Taxpayers shoulder the cost of disproportionately large police forces, which crack down on petty criminals instead of preventing murders, rapes, and significant property crimes. Then taxpayers fund overburdened public defenders and backlogged courts, prisons, probation officers, and legislators in their effort to criminalize yet more ridiculously innocuous behaviors. It’s neverending. It’s unsustainable. And it’s not going to fix itself — not in ways significant enough to warrant further discussion.

As of 2011, according to a 2013 study by the associate dean of Eastern Kentucky University’s School of Justice Studies, Victor E. Kappeler, a mere two of 14 arrests were for violent or property crimes. If police truly existed to fight actual crime, not the overwhelmingly excessive number of ‘crimes’ created by lawmakers, departments would be slashed in staff dramatically.

Kappeler writes:

“If we take all the violent crimes reported to the police in 2011, we find that there were 1,203,564 violent crimes (FBI, 2012). Since more than 885,000 people worked as sworn officers in that same year (BJS 2012), there were 1.36 violent crimes reported for every police officer employed in the U.S. If crime were dispersed evenly across the nation’s police, then this would mean that in 2011 each police officer would have been responsible for investigating just over a single violent crime. And since we know that a relatively small number of criminals are responsible for the vast majority of crime in a society, each cop would be responsible for even fewer criminals.”

After the hotly controversial deaths by police of Michael Brown and Eric Garner in 2014, the call for police reform intensified exponentially. While undoubtedly well-intentioned in motive, years of begging nicely for the broken system to fix itself have, as to be expected, fallen on deaf ears.

Abolishing police entirely might reek of radicalism to a nation cowed by constant government fear propaganda, but considering how little violence is present in our current society — compared to just decades ago — examples already in place prove the concept has teeth.

Trained and unarmed intervention teams consisting of civilians — often former violent offenders, themselves — can and do defuse potentially violent conflicts in their own neighborhoods in major cities from Los Angeles to Detroit, as noted by Rolling Stone. Indeed, conflict resolution as a community program has effectively prevented criminal activity, improved neighborhood relations, reduced gang violence, and resolved — without the involvement of police or courts — crimes which have already occurred.

Ethan Ucker, cofounder of Circles & Ciphers — “a leadership training a conflict resolution program for young men who’ve been in prison, jail, or a gang,” which began in Chicago — facilitates “peace circles.” Though ‘peace circles’ will likely evoke images of stoned hippies around a campfire for many, the concept has done the extraordinary in a community once awash in violence and gang activity.

In just one anecdotal example Ucker offered to the Chicago Reader recently,

“There was a robbery at this store in the community. One of the people at the store whose stuff was taken said, ‘Look, I don’t want to call the cops. Is there anything we can do?’ … They found on Facebook that this young person was selling their stuff, and that young person happened to go to a school where we’d done some circles, so I knew a teacher at the school and could say, ‘Hey, this is where we’re at.’”

Eventually, robber and robbed were brought together in an attempt to resolve the wrongdoing.

“That young person ended up returning what he had that hadn’t been sold, and then working at the shop in restitution for everything else. Then it turned out he really liked working there, and after this agreement was over, he continued to go there and volunteer. There was a relationship built there.”

That relationship among community members can act as a compelling deterrent against crime — the better one knows a neighbor, the less likely they are to rob or victimize them. This cannot be said of police in 2016, as officers often don’t live in the neighborhoods they police, which creates a degree of separation and personal investment from the ultimate outcome of any interaction — decreasing the hesitation to act violently in an encounter that wouldn’t ordinarily call for the use of force.

In some manifestations, this community solution subverting the need to involve police and the court system is termed ‘reparative or transformative justice’ — about which José Martín writes for Rolling Stone has appeared in cities across the U.S., like “Philadelphia’s experiment with community courts, spaces are created where accountability is understood as a community issue and the entire community, along with the so-called perpetrator and the victim of a given offense, try to restore and even transform everyone in the process.”

Putting the community back in community policing while abolishing police as armed agents for revenue generation can effect sweeping changes to an increasingly polarized and distanced society. Rather than the financial feedback loop apparent in our [in] justice system presently, defunding police loosens taxpayer dollars to reinstate mental health and addiction programs — two conditions of which often drive actual violent crime — among many other effective solutions.

When our rights have been pawned away by a money-hungry system, the only means left to reclaim those rights stands in wresting excessive power from those who would misuse and abuse it, in often brutal ways.

Police aren’t serving the people who pay their salaries — and are under no obligation to do so — but if they aren’t solving crimes or protecting the citizenry, whose purposes do they serve?

As Graeber, writing after the Department of Justice published a scathing report on systemic racism and excessive fines as pattern and practice in Ferguson, Missouri, continues, “in recent decades, local governments have become deeply indebted to large, private financial institutions — many of the same ones that brought of us the crash of 2008. (In Ferguson, for instance, the amount of revenue collected from fines corresponds almost exactly to that shelled out to service municipal debt.) Increasingly, cities find themselves in the business of arresting citizens in order to pay creditors.”

READ MORE:  Graphic Video Shows Cops Use K9 to Torture Unarmed, Non-Violent Naked Man

Ferguson is, of course, far from an isolated example. One wonders if those who unfalteringly defend the violent police state would as adamantly stand behind them if police were more accurately portrayed as state-sponsored, armed thugs for Big Banks and corporate America.

Notice none of these arguments for abolishing police criticize officers as individuals — except for an obviously growing number of bad apples, many officers chose policing as an occupation with protecting and serving in mind. But that arguably laudable goal is a vapid remnant of what has become policing for profit at the expense of communities nationwide. And unless an altogether unlikely revamping of overcriminalization takes place soon, officers serve no one but state and corporate interests — thus those who argue police put their lives on the line miss that they do so at the behest of the system oppressing us all to meet its financial goals.

No perfect solution for police violence exists, and in the absence of wholesale reform, abolishing American police might be our only realistic and suitable solution.

  • Bella Sanford

    This article is absolutely brilliant. I mean God forbid we should stop acting like animals and treat each other with loving kindness. These problems really started with Americans becoming ignorant about our Constitution. The minute judges started unconstitutionally forbidding jury’s from ruling not guilty because they didn’t believe a defendants crime should be labeled a crime is the minute we lost control of our system of governmental checks and balances and screwed the pooch. The rest of all this stems directly from that simple fact. The Truth is we need to do away not just with the police, but big corporate government period. #godsaveamerica

    • JennaTrull
      • Cal

        Cute and partially correct. Jury Nullification is important. The courts do not allow it for a few reasons, but the US Constitution from which they get their authority requires it. Pull out your US Constitution, and turn to Article 3. Don’t have one? Shame on you for how else but having that contract that all who serve within our governments are under (and your state’s Constitution also) can you know what they are supposed to do, forbidden to do, and can do only under specific named circumstances?

        Article 3, Section 1, says “… The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior (state) courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,…”. So what is good behavior? Good behavior is taking and Keeping the required Oath(s), and then doing their assigned duties as delegated in a constitutional manner.

        What does that have to do with jury nullification? Juries are to be made up of the people so that those charged are judged by normal people, not governmental servants. Juries do not only judge the guilt or innocence of a person/group/whatever, but they decide if a law is good and constitutional as is required. If the decision is that it is not a “good” law, then they nullify it and it is actually supposed to be removed from the books. The juries also decide if a judge is using “Good Behavior” while serving. They cannot do that if they do not know what is required behavior of judges. If they find that the judge is NOT using “Good Behavior”, then a Grand Jury Investigation is called by the people to further investigate.

        If it is found that a judge does not use the required “Good Behavior” as required them a charge is made against them and that judge has its day in court with a Grand Jury of the people as is required for all charged of a crime. If found guilty that judge is then removed and not allowed to serve anymore. This used to be known throughout our nation, but is knowledge that was deliberately educated “around” or removed so that the people know longer even know their OWN duties as constitutionally required.

        Thomas Jefferson: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

        Thomas Jefferson: “If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.”

        Thomas Jefferson: “It is left… to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves
        to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty.”

        Grand Jury – “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

        “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries
        and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

        “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose
        functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.” (not maritime law that we see being used against us today)

        “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the
        judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

        “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

        “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

        “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting
        court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to
        invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Nor would it be lawful of them to do so.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) (End quote)

        Thomas Jefferson: “…Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

        Dr. Vieira put it this way: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The
        government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s
        constitutional rights.
        The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.”

  • billdeserthills

    Shut down America’s largest gang and save the taxpayers huge fines/ wasting years of their lives doing time for victimless crimes
    The police now cost Americans more money in BS fines and lost lives than the criminals they were hired to fight

    Say Yes to only dealing with half the crime and close down these scum!

  • Paschn

    As much as eliminating Israeli-trained cops and dual citizen “owned” DHS would likely give me a wet dream, it’s not likely to happen.

    The very reason the Judas Class “invented” all these “benevolent” agencies etc. is to;

    1.) Make goddamn certain when the people blow their tops, (righteously), they’ll have plenty of Neo-Bolshevik sycophants to protect them.

    And

    2.) For the purpose of “appointing” yet MORE dual citizens into this foul thing called “government” as “payback” for all that tax-payer money “gifted” BACK to the Judas Class for election – re-election wins, (insert “re-appointments”.

    “No Rothschild is English…No Baruch, Morgenthau, Cohen, Lehman, Warburg, Kuhn, Kahn, Schiff, Sieff or Solomon was ever born Anglo-Saxon. And it is for this filth
    that you fight. It is for this filth that you murdered your Empire. It is this filth that elects, selects, your politicians.”

    Ezra Pound, March 15, 1942 radio broadcast

  • tz1

    You ask the wrong question. In your pollyanna professor pangloss fantasy you imagine the best of all possible worlds, instead of reality.
    Because you don’t ask the right question the answer is irrelevant.
    One can only compare between two real alternatives. The current system is evil and corrupt, That does not mean any replacement will be better, or even less evil or less corrupt. You must argue that. I’ve noted that if you pull DROs (Molyneaux, 2995?) Dispute Resolution Organizations would be a worse nightmare “utopia”.
    A second problem is we live in a tyranny today. To worry about the final 5% is silly and irrational. Let us remove the 95% agreed tyranny and only then see if we can replace the remaining 5% police with something better.

  • Undecider

    Getting down to brass tacks, the solution is the 2nd Amendment. Neighborhood militia can maintain the peace. The problem though, there would be a bunch of yahoos, hooligans and scumbags in these militia making a mess of things. There’s a severe need for professionalism. At the end of the day, they’d end up with the very thing they sought to get rid of. Best to keep the police close to the community, responsible and in line.

    • Cal

      The Militia that is constitutionally required must be trained as the congress requires the military to be trained and educated in the US Constitution and their own state’s Constitution to be lawful. If those requirements are met, then the Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
      — Enforce the US Constitution (Supreme LAW of this nation)and each state’s Constitution (highest LAW of the state),
      — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
      — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
      — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

      Since all serving as the Militia would be trained in basically the same manner they would NOT be “making a mess of things”. What they would be doing is enforcing the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution as they are lawfully bound to do, and are required sworn to follow as they are under no government – state or general (federal) – but both are required to use them for the above mentioned purposes. By that requirement those that serve within our governments are forbidden to use any other agency for those purposes.

      So though you are the Militia, as all of us are, you are NOT the Militia that is required to enforce our laws until you are trained as constitutionally required.

  • Army Vet 4444

    Since we now live in a “POLICE STATE”, we are feeling the pains of living under tyranny. I can totally understand the call to eliminate the police all together, and, I believe that is ONE way to fix the problems with living in a police state. But no matter what we do, it’s not going to make any difference unless we fix the illegal laws that were put in place, that brought us to where we are now. The single largest illegal law that has affected our police is the Patriot Act. Citizens should be yelling at the top of their lungs on a daily basis to eliminate this law. It violates 7of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. That’s why I call it “illegal”. Obviously, the supreme court disagrees with me. Yet another group of liberals I would love to sit down and have a serious talk with.

    After the laws, the next largest influence that has been detrimental to “good policing” is the organization called the SPLC. They are the ones that put “no hesitation targeting” on the map. They also do an advanced police course in combat zones. How many communities really want combat soldiers for police? I mean really, “Shoot everyone that isn’t in your team, and sort anything out later.” You want that in your community?? Shut them DOWN!!! They are MASSIVELY liberal. If you are a conservative, especially with an organization, you are probably on one of their “hit lists”. (Lists they put out to police departments that state such people are part of anti-American organization and should be watched, and should be questioned if possible) They are OUTRAGEOUS!

  • gininitaly

    I’m for it…. when do we start the firing process?

  • Mike Gilli

    I thought of sharing this with friends but found it so USA centered it’s like the rest of humanity doesn’t exist.. this subconscious racism offends everyone else.

    • Cal

      That is because the rest of the world does not have a legal system (when working LAWFULLY) that is like ours. Nor do they have governments where the people in charge of carrying out the duties are NOT the government, but put there – elected, hired, contracted, etc – assigned by and that they are under contract and Oath to, the US Constitution.

      Here it is the documents (yes, plural) themselves, the Constitution of the united States, and each state’s Constitution, plus the American people when doing their duties that are our government. That is why everyone who serves within our government is called a “public servant”. That makes it easy for those who bother, and it should be everyone in the USA and those who do business with her, to know exactly what authority the people they are dealing with are contracted to do.

      Example, no US President on their own can create Treaties. If that is done, that treaty is NOT binding on the USA and the American people as that person did not have the lawful authority to do so. (US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2: “He shall have Power, by and WITH the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senate present concur;”) (caps are mine)

      Or no other can make laws/codes/regulations/etc that are binding on the American people except for those that serve within the House of Representatives and the Senate (Article 1, Section 1: “ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” So there is no agency here in the USA that actually has any authority to create laws/regulations/codes/etc that are binding on the American people. Are there agencies that do so, sure. But those that work within those agencies are either (knowingly or unknowingly, which with the required Oath is criminal in and of itself) domestic enemies of or traitors to the American people, the US Constitution, the USA. When anything that changes our government in unlawful ways are backed by force – as governments are – it also qualifies as *Terrorism.

      *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

      So though it would be nice of other countries to create their own form of self government, and hopefully not neglect their duties to control it, how can this apply to other nations?

  • AFreeMan

    (1) Police are not true law enforcement; they are really code or “policy” enforcement (the root word of “police”). Only the Sheriff (and deputies) can enforce the law locally, who is directly accountable to the People, via elections. (2) Statutory law is not true law, according to the US Supreme Court; it is merely “color of law.” Only common law and the constitution is true law. (3) Police are not allowed to use para-military equipment, because it violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which they are doing on an increasing basis. (4) When there is no victim, there is no crime; it’s called “corpus delicti,” and the State cannot be the victim. Why does the State attempt to collect damages via its agents (Police) when it’s not the injured party? The bottom line is that we have State employees violating numerous laws, acting in tyranny against the People, to whom they are public servants who are supposed to serve and protect us – not bully & kill us or fleece us via revenue sourcing!

  • junktex

    An idea whose time has come

  • Cal

    “No perfect solution for police violence exists, and in the absence of wholesale reform, abolishing American police might be our only realistic and suitable solution.”

    There is a solution, actually a lawful requirement. The US Constitution has always required that all able-bodied Americans and those (constitutionally, not put here by domestic enemies or traitors) lawfully here to be trained as the Military is trained (once a year after the basics, paid), and educated in the US Constitution, all that is in Pursuance thereof it, and in their OWN state’s Constitution. US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15. The duties those that serve within the federal government and those that serve within our state governments have TO THE Militias are found in Clause 16.

    Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.“

    Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the
    Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

    So who are the Militia? We are, every able-bodied person. But who make up the Militia that is required to enforce our laws and to be used by the state and federal governments. Those of us, and one day it must be all, who are trained and educated as required. That is so that we know what we are to enforce and to refuse to enforce; that we will be bound by a lawfully required Oath to uphold; the position the police of this nation were to be doing for us, not doing to us. But as our founders told us, those who serve within governments can never be trusted with power and that it is our duty to hold the accountable for their actions.

    George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

    Thomas Jefferson: “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.”

    Thomas Paine: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. The event of yesterday was one of those kind of alarms which is just sufficient to rouse us to duty, without being of consequence enough
    to depress our fortitude. It is not a field of a few acres of ground, but a cause, that we are defending, and whether we defeat the enemy in one battle, or by degrees, the consequences will be the same.”

    The US Constitution is the supreme LAW of this land; it defines our governments (yes, plural) – defines completely the general (federal) government and the basic outline and some major concepts of each state – the state Constitution further defines that state government); it assigns the duties to EACH BRANCH, and to certain named-in-writing offices within a branch. We are a Constitutional Republic, NOT a democracy. We, the American people, trained and educated as required, are its enforcers. Each state’s Constitution is the highest LAW of each state and the people of that state, trained as in the above comment, when serving as the Militia are its enforcers. Not under the people who serve within the government, but directly under the US Constitution and the state’s Constitution, taking orders directly from whichever person is serving as the Governor (or President) at the time of need for which they are called forth by the congress of the federal government or legislative branch of the state, paid at that period by those governments.

    Both the federal and state governments are REQUIRED to use the Militia to;
    — Enforce the US Constitution (supreme LAW) and each state’s Constitution (highest LAW),
    — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
    — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

    Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.
    The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the
    separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

    Why was this done in this manner? To make sure there could never be a police state here in the USA. That no domestic enemy or traitor of/to the USA and the American people could not call for “emergency powers” or “martial law”, both being the exact opposite of our legitimate government. So that the people would always be in charge of their own lives while keeping with the laws of our nation instead of “color of law” being used against us.

    John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States: “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every
    constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 28: “The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.“

    Consider these words by Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. THEIR SWORDS, AND EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, ARE THE BIRTH-RIGHT OF AN AMERICAN… THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.” This is because governments throughout history has/have always used those arms against their own people.

    George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

    That is why the people had to be “dumbed down” and talked out of being the Militia. That is why they had to be taught to not read the US Constitution and their state Constitution. Because if they knew what the contracts that those that serve within our governments actually required of those that serve, they would not allow much of what is going on today. It took decades to “dumb down” the American people, and it was done deliberately against us to destroy our nation.

    Ronald Reagan: “I had a copy of the Soviet Constitution and I read it with great interest. And I saw all kinds of terms in there that sound just exactly like our own: ‘Freedom of assembly’ and ‘freedom of speech’ and so forth. Of course, they don’t allow them to have
    those things, but they’re in there in the constitution. But I began to wonder about the other constitutions – everyone has one – and our own, and why so much emphasis on ours. And then I found out, and the answer was very simple – that’s why you don’t notice it at first. But it is so great that it tells the entire difference.

    All those other constitutions are documents that say, ‘We, the government, allow the people the following rights,’ and our Constitution says ‘We the People, allow the government the following privileges and rights.’ We give our permission to government to do the things that it does.
    And that’s the whole story of the difference – why we’re unique in the world and why no matter what our troubles may be, we’re going to overcome”.

    It is also important that the people here understand what terrorism is; 28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”. Our lawful and legitimate government is not a person, we stopped that with the creation of our nation. It is the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it, plus each state’s Constitution.

    Consider that the ONLY crimes that are (and it is in writing) assigned to the federal government in the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations. All other law enforcement matters are the purview of the individual states.

    Also consider this, we were a rich and good nation when we were more following the US Constitution. We are in wars of aggression that our US Constitution does not allow. That the state governments govern the domestic side, and the general (federal) government was created to be the state’s representative in foreign affairs; to create a supreme law of this nation that none who serve within our governments are allowed to go against; that we the people are the enforcers.

    John Adams wrote to Abigail April 26, 1777 and said: “Is it not intolerable, that the opening Spring, which I should enjoy with my Wife and Children upon my little Farm, should pass away, and laugh at me, for laboring, Day after Day, and Month after Month, in a Conclave, Where neither Taste, nor Fancy, nor Reason, nor Passion, nor Appetite can be gratified?
    Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.”

    Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: “a well-disciplined militia” is “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them” and also a guarantee of “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense.”

    Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

  • Macado

    All cities with more than 50k population, should disband their police departments and let people see liberals are right, all crimes are police departments fault.

  • MikeAT_ACW

    Thank you….I needed a laugh after this day. I just started with a boyfriend smashing his girlfriend against a bus station, another brother and sister assaulting a woman because “the bitch owes me 150 dollars…” followed by a woman shooting in the air in an apartment complex after visiting her baby daddy and now I’ve got this telling me I’m the problem. Again, thanks, I need this laugh.

    • Nexdeceptus

      And a literate education.

  • Ed

    If there are no police, there will be no taxes. That’s fine with me.
    Bottom line: Forcing people to pay for things that they don’t want is evil. If you, as an individual or group of individuals want a cop, then you pay for it. Necessity is the mother of invention so time will tell what the desire to acquire the most efficient self-defense will bring.
    For those of you who think that “the constitution” is the answer, I suggest that you read some Lysander Spooner.

  • Marc Tremmel

    Start a hashtag

  • Dev_mom

    I’m ready. I protect my own family. I sure as hell don’t call the police! How stupid is that?