Wednesday, April 21, 2021

An Open Letter to American Patrolmen in the Wake of the Guilty Murder Verdict Against Patrolman Derek Chauvin

Dear American Patrolmen,

Well if you didn't know it before, you sure as hell should recognize it now, the government is not your friend.

Foremost in your mind should be that the charges against Patrolman Derek Chauvin were brought by the state. Yes, the state threw one of your brothers under the bus. 

It is difficult to understand, if one were to take politics out of it and look at it from a cold, rational perspective, how this occurred.

As the attorney Andrew Branca writes (my highlight):

The state has suggested that for much of the period of restraint Floyd had stopped resisting arrest, and that from this point forward no further restraint was justified. This is, really, just silly—the state’s own witnesses testified that just because a suspect appeared to have become compliant did not mean they would remain so, and that indeed the fact that the suspect had been violently resisting lawful arrest only minutes before, as Floyd had been here, was a factor to consider in deciding whether to maintain restraint.

Even during the period that Floyd appeared to lose consciousness, continued restraint could well be reasonable. Again, the state’s own witnesses testified that suspects who lost consciousness due to drug overdose, and then revived, were often more violent upon revival than they had been previously—and it had already required three officers to subdue a handcuffed Floyd the first time around.

George Floyd was a big 6' 4" tall, not a skinny 6' 4'. Given the way he had been resisting arrest and the fact that the state's witnesses confirmed that out of an unconscious state suspects can become more violent after waking up, it appears that Chauvin was justified in restraining him and doing so in line with his training.

Now, given the political climate, it is not surprising that the jury came back with a guilty verdict, and rapidly, but this is on the prosecutors who did not have the courage to stand up to the crowd. They did not have the courage to not charge Chauvin in the first place. The state sealed Chauvin's fate the minute he was charged.

But this has ramifications beyond Derek Chauvin. No doubt many of you are counting the days to retirement in the hope you don't get that call that puts you in an intense situation, especially against a black man, and the state determines that an action you were trained to implement was not justified in the killing or severe injury of a suspected perpetrator. 

You know more of these cases are going to come in this mad "woke" climate that in reality is as unwoke as possible. It is a period manipulated by power-seeking hustlers that will take anyone down that will prevent the advance of their power and that police are at the top of their take-down menu.

But before I go further, let me explain where I am coming from. I believe in law and order but I don't believe that it should emanate from the state. I wrote a book about it, Foundations of Private Property Society Theory: Anarchism for the Civilized Person. I am all for police but I believe they should develop in the private sector. The book explains how this could develop and why it should.

But since I don't expect my desired Private Property Society to emerge anytime soon, I recognize I must live within the confines of the world that exists as do you patrolmen.

So what is the solution for you all when there is visceral hate toward police by many?

I suggest you follow what is close to the PPS, but not quite, the libertarian non-aggression principle. The NAP is defined by Prof. Walter Block as follows:

The non-aggression [principle] the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.

To uphold the NAP is a heroic thing and as patrolmen, you are in an important position to advance the concept.

In the current climate, it makes sense to ignore government laws that go beyond NAP violations. Such non-violent "crimes," as defined by the state as the possession or selling of drugs, prostitution, driving without a license plate, driving with dark-tinted windows, to name a few.

By ignoring these non-NAP crimes, you are cutting down the odds you are going to end up in a confrontation where the state will throw you under the bus.

Stick to real crimes. Join the Look the Other Way Political Party when it comes to non-NAP "crimes."

By sticking to real crimes such as murders, robberies, muggings and rapes, the odds of your being thrown under the bus by the state fall dramatically.

Indeed, there is a very technical NAP Look the Other Way argument that Derek Chauvin, and the other police officers, should not have attempted to apprehend George Floyd. 

You see, the originating call was that Floyd was attempting to pass a counterfeit $20 bill. From a hardcore libertarian perspective, Floyd was just going into competition with the Federal Reserve which is a government entity that supports the elitists against the people and pumps out money to them.

In other words, the justification to roll on this call would have been reed-thin.

The Look the Other Way Party is all about, well, looking the other way when people commit "crimes" as defined by the state that are not NAP violations.

A hardcore libertarian patrolman, if he got this call, would not have even "seen" Floyd crossing the street in front of his patrol car, even if he completely matched the description of the one passing the bill. And there would be zero chance he would have pulled him over in his car sometime later.

In summary, the woke crowd is after police with a vengeance, you are marked men. You will know it whenever you make a stop, the cellphones will come out recording you and in more and more neighborhoods verbal abuse will be heaped by the crowd at you during these stops.

You need to protect yourselves before you can protect us. The state is not going to be there for you. Stick to protecting us against real crime, NAP violation crime. It is your best chance for not being the next Derk Chauvin.

Good luck out there, you are going to need it.



  1. But what of the store owner who received a suspected counterfeit bill?

    1. Well, if coppers don't enforce Federal Reserve paper as counterfeit that sort of ends Fed notes, doesn't it?


    2. The cops will not come out for minor accidents which result in more of a loss. Most recently, I'm on the hook for my deductible because of this. There might have been footage from the store, but the store wouldn't turn it over to me without a police report, so I'm out $500.

      The store should train their employees on how to spot counterfeit. It could be thought of as a cost of doing business that an occasional bill gets through, imo.

    3. At what point did the clerk/ store owner realise the note was “fake”? Apparently at the time of the transaction and one assumes they did not take it or sell the goods? So then they suffered no loss.
      I have dealt with “fake” notes for years working in bars where the circumstances are a little more strained due to pace, light, etc. It is very easy to identify “fake” notes. And in over thirty years of Bart ending I have never had one in my til and I have never had to call the police or supervised anyone else who accepted one accidentally and decided to call the police.
      This is not to lay blame on the store owner it is just an observation along the lines of the inquiry about the position of the merchant in the case or in another hypothetical case.

  2. The flip-side of the coin: People everywhere should engage in civil disobedience, in ignoring immoral laws that constitute victimless crimes.

  3. A well-reasoned argument, thank you. LOL at this, classic: "You see, the originating call was that Floyd was attempting to pass a counterfeit $20 bill. From a hardcore libertarian perspective, Floyd was just going into competition with the Federal Reserve which is a government entity that supports the elitists against the people and pumps out money to them." If it hadn't been Chauvin, it would have been G-men!

  4. Didn’t Floyd violate the NAP (or try) by taking the store owners property by fraud? Agreement was merchandise for a valid Fed Reserve Note, Floyd violated the agreement.

  5. Though there is push back here, RW makes a brilliantly astute argument. If you deliver additional consequences for police interference in minor infractions that are questionable at best and or open to alternative transaction the officer has no even remote zero sum game outcome in these instances! then it is only logical to support Sui's above statement of mass non-compliance as it will then create opportunity for win win scenarios in which the officer correctly analyzes the likelihood of a negative outcome per infraction.

    The liberal left wants to abandon the police and so its high time for them to abandon the mad rush to overt regulation or questionable enforcement.

    Besides I like the idea of the Urban primitives running wild against each other and removing the stupid from the gene pool.

    Thats really the win win.

  6. Dear all patrolmen.

    We don't need you. We never did. You are enforcerers for the state masquerading as a charity security service. Beg us for forgiveness, then go find honest work doing something useful.

    1. Exactly. My they and the urban apes mutually annihilate.