"Police are trained
to take charge early on and keep the target in a constant state of retreat
and obeisance. This, combined with the "singling out" of mob leaders and
inciters in order to deprive the crowd of a leader, puts the police in total
and constant control."
|
|
Lost in a Crowd
ALWAYS A THREAT TO FREEDOM!
Posted October 30, 2004
thepeoplesvoice.org
By: Ted Lang
Those who feel that people are basically evil and therefore need to be
controlled to do what is right, rely on big, powerful and intervening
government to ensure a righteous society. Those more spiritually oriented
and appreciative of the marvelous gift and experience of life are forgiving
of individual foibles and believe in the natural goodness of Man, which is
greatly enhanced by individual freedom and responsibility devoid of
government force. Such freedom from government results in a powerful desire
for peace and goodwill among all in a society.
Mob rule is dangerous because it diminishes one's identity and one's
responsibility. A crowd, mob, or organization cannot experience freedom -
only an individual can experience it. This explains the intent by
government, which, by its nature, is neither peaceful nor conducive to
freedom. Government, however, needs to assign individual responsibility
when any one person "incites" a group or crowd to riot. Government permits
individuality only when it needs to fix responsibility to a specific person
to allow it to mete out the only deliverable it is capable of; namely,
force.
And Government force is a jealous god, and will tolerate no other gods, just
or unjust, to come between it and its insatiable need to demonstrate and
dispense its power. And such power is nameless, faceless and ruthless.
Government is rarely good - it is inherently evil for precisely the very
same reason it is terrified of an "inciter" of mob violence - a causative
factor that originates violence without being individually responsible.
The similarity between mob violence and normal government force couldn't
have been more clearly demonstrated than by the horrific killing by Boston
Police of 21-year-old college student, Victoria Snelgrove, during an
exuberant yet peaceful celebration by Boston Red Sox fans after winning four
straight games from the Yankees to wrest from their almost one hundred
year-old nemesis the American League pennant.
To be sure, the pepper gas dispatching weaponry, supplied to Boston Police
via US taxpayer funding, provided the City financial aid to defray the costs
of hosting the Democratic National Convention this past summer. This
indirectly involves the federal government as well in this heinous crime.
Why a "heinous" crime, one might ask? Was the life of a police officer, or
anyone else for that matter, being threatened by Ms. Snelgrove? Was anyone
near Ms. Snelgrove threatening anyone? Eyewitnesses offer that virtually
all the revelers were boisterous and joyful, but no one was threatening
anyone. Those same eyewitnesses offered that the only ones posing a real
threat were the Boston Police.
The overly aggressive action by the police is an outgrowth of "assertiveness
training." A meek, "Take it out of the wallet." may eventually progress to
physical violence against the inquiring police officer. Police are trained
to take charge early on and keep the target in a constant state of retreat
and obeisance. This, combined with the "singling out" of mob leaders and
inciters in order to deprive the crowd of a leader, puts the police in total
and constant control. And even the slightest sign of irreverence, good
humor, or even a smile directed towards a police officer pointing a
non-lethal weapon in a lethal manner at a reveler's face at a too short and
lethal range, is all it takes for a trigger of something harmful but not
lethal to be angrily depressed.
It is, at best, extremely difficult to believe, that the officers involved
were unfamiliar with the power of the compressed gas propelled pepper spray
projectile gun. Experience with the recoil of the weapon as well as the
impact of the projectile at close range were not elements of deployment that
the police were unfamiliar with. Nor are the police unfamiliar with the
danger of a loss of total and constant control, normally immediately
recognized as humor, a smile, or any other indication of the absence of fear
on the part of the targeted, suspected offender. Perhaps someone remarked
that the cop looked like Darth Vader or one of his storm troopers. Perhaps
someone laughed.
And although the police commissioner and the mayor stated that they "accept
full responsibility," the state always maintains its potency in precisely
the same fashion as does a rioter - by losing themselves in a crowd and
dodging both individuality and responsibility. Responsibility isn't merely
accepting blame, but accepting also the punishment for irresponsible action
and the initiation of some form of restitution. Who will pay any monetary
claims against the city for damages? Certainly not the government officials
in charge!
-###-
© THEODORE E. LANG 10/28/04 All rights reserved.
Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.
|