Dangerous Propaganda Distributed At Occupy Phoenix

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

This is just some of the advice dispensed in a flier titled "When Is It OK To Shoot A Cop?":

Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.)

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A” –even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side – you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak you mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law-breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

That's right, if you think it's okay to yell FIRE! in a crowded movie theater and an officer of the law attempts to arrest you for it, you should become a cop-killer.

The flier in question was on a table with other pamphlets and papers available for Occupy Phoenix protesters and anyone else visiting Cesar Chavez Plaza. The police are unsure if they were left there by a protester and no credible threats have been issued to police, but they're currently investigating. State officials were also contacted.

This isn't the first time questionable material has been passed around Occupy protests. Occupy Baltimore passed around a flier informing protesters who are victims of sexual assault to contact their internal security team first instead of the police. They confirmed that it was drafted and distributed by people within their own group. And while they say they won't discourage anyway from going to the police, they also state they want to try and handle issues within their own camp before involving police, including providing counseling for the ABUSER. (How about the ABUSED?)

Where is the line drawn between freedom of speech/freedom of the press and endangering the welfare of others? Do you see any merit in either type of material? Is it better to take care of problems internally when involved in protest groups rather than to the police? What if the problem escalates?

Comments

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I was actually anticipating that, my sympathies lie with those protesting. My family fought for their right to do so.