Self-Defense and Police State Home Invasions
By Shane Smith - August 28, 2015

It's 3:00 in the morning. Your wife and young children are asleep. You hear a commotion outside, followed by the sound of a window rattling. You get up, grab your 12 gauge and creep down the stairs. You hear window glass breaking. A black-clad man scrambles in, and while he does, you exercise your right to defend your house and shoot. The man dies.

In a free society, this would be an acceptable, indeed, admirable, use of force in defense of your home and family. There's only one catch: the man you shot is a cop. In a free, sane society, the benefit of the doubt would be given to you. You saw a masked thug climbing into a broken window, and for all you knew, intended to kill you and your family. You used justifiable deadly force to repel an attack against your home.

The fault would lie with the team of officers who attempted a highly dangerous operation that got a fellow officer killed, and they would be punished accordingly for acting so stupidly. Amiright? BUT, we don't live in a sane society do we? We live in a 50k SWAT raid-per-year society, a society that worships police and when something like this does happen, the police are given a pass and the man defending his home from an unknown threat is charged with murder.

Killeen, Texas resident, Marvin Louis Guy, is just such a man, in just such a situation. You see, the Killeen SWAT team thought it would be a grand idea to execute a no-knock raid on Guy's house at 5:30 in the morning. As they were breaking through his window, Guy opened fire on them, killing Charles Dinwiddie and wounding three other officers. They were acting on a bogus tip from an informant who promised that bags of cocaine would be found. Nothing of the kind was recovered. Charges against Guy do not stem from any drug crime, but solely from his successful attempt to fend off an attack on his home.

From KDH News: In Texas, anyone who kills a peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty can be charged with capital murder and could face the death penalty, if convicted.

Texas officials should be far more concerned with the lawfulness, and wisdom, of allowing officers to engage in this type of behavior than whether to sentence Guy to life or the needle. Stories like this always bring the mind back to the senseless, artificial nature of the Drug War. The Drug War paved the way for Dinwiddie to meet his demise on that early morning. Without the Drug War he would still be alive. Guy's life wouldn't currently be hanging on the slender threads of fate in Texas. The Drug War is the most reality-denying public policy being pursued today, and the body count daily climbs higher as it is allowed to continue.

Back to the beginning hypothetical: If black-clad men were breaking into your home in the middle of the night, would you use lethal force to defend your home? And if you did, and the dead intruders turned out to be police, what would it say about the society you lived in when you were sentenced to death? How much criminal activity can hide behind a badge? How far can an officer go before a citizen of a free republic has a right to intervene? And if those who are officially tasked with enforcing the law become the principal threat to the law of a free society, when will citizens put an end to the contradiction?

A man breaks into a home and the owner pulls a trigger to end a threat to his property and life. That is law; that is just. A society that recognizes it as such will draw nearer to the ideal of liberty. A society that turns a blind eye when innocent men and women are prosecuted for defending their homes will not remain free for long.

When police break into homes in the middle of the night, unannounced, they are taking their lives into their hands. It's dangerous and stupid in the extreme, and as a result, many end up dead. There are many other examples of police killing and getting killed by barging into houses in the middle of the night. It seems senseless, but these SWAT raids are a direct outgrowth of the War on Drugs.

End this ridiculous crusade against the personal choices of citizens and the SWAT raids will end. Departments will have to give up their warzone goodies, as they won't be needed any more. People will get high safely, and ditch the synthetics and prescription drugs, which have been given a market due to the War on a Plant.

The government knows this; however, the Drug War is their means into our wallets and lives, and a backdoor to our liberty. It's their cash cow, their Golden Goose, it justifies billions in government jobs and departments. It's the excuse for the Police State itself. The black-market crime wave that the Drug War gins up gives state and federal government the excuse for more legislation, more police, more abuse. It incentivizes employing more violent, authoritarian personalities in law enforcement positions. If you are in search of the hive, the Mother Brain of the American Police State, you will find it residing within the Drug War bureaucracy. Attack that bureaucracy by attacking the Drug War itself.

Legalization will deal the mortal wound to the hydra that has coiled itself around our lives and liberties. We can use its reaction as a compass. If full legalization gains steam throughout the country, every base emotion will be appealed to in order to prevent it. The creature will appeal to your fear, your anger, your patriotism, vanity, envy, pride … everything will be summoned to prevent the stake from being driven home. Ignore its screams, and act knowing full well that you act for the liberty of not just your generation, but the generations to come.

Shane Smith is an accountant living in Norman, Oklahoma. He writes for Red Dirt Report. Liberty is his religion.

  • Ed

    This excellent exposé of Drug War nonsense hits the nail right on the head. Government, meaning people in very high places and agencies (read: like CIA, etc) have made it possible in many ways to reap the profits of drugs, illegalized them, then create a police state apparatus including military hardware and Gestapo-like SWAT teams to attack the population whilst “saving” it from the drugs they made “illegal”. Such nonsense conducted by horrible, self-serving jack-booted thugs who wear a badge and a ski mask! And the people suffer and think they’re being “protected” by the criminals who perpetrate the crime in the first place. May God help us from our “saviors”!

  • ThomasJK

    We live in a society whose governments and many of their official government functions have deteriorated to a condition of lawless, anti-Constitutional out-of-control anarchy…..And it is likely that we have already passed the point past which there can be no return or recovery. F. U. B. A. R. ????

    • Bill Ross

      cannot be repaired. dump the doubt (????)…

  • dave jr

    It is bad enough when they smash down doors. What happened to police identifying themselves upon entry? What is even worse, if the Swat team had seen the Home Owner even holding a gun, they would have blown him away justifying it as Officers defending themselves. This is just another example of the breakdown of the rule of law. Of government exercising power above the law.

  • Freetruthforever .

    What specifically happened judicially/legislatively (court case/law) that changed the age-old custom of cops knocking on the door to show you a warrant? Was it just arbitrarily done as a matter of police department policy?

    • dave jr

      What happened judicially/legislatively? Nothing. It is an exercise of raw power, because they can, because we don’t react.

    • dave jr

      Even my property being reduced to splinters and a demand of “FREEZE! – POLICE!”, my alarmed pooch being shot in the head, me and my family being thrown to the floor with a knee to the back of the neck; would be better than dumbed down SWAT thugs lurking inside my home under the cover of darkness or any other time they ‘feel’ suspicion. Let alone a wrong address or bad tip.

  • Bill Ross

    Well done, Shane.

    All I can add is that fake “war of terrorism” is the external (create problems, profit from fake “solutions” and prey on fake perps), complementary “predatory methodology” of attempting (by false pretexts) to enslave all who would be free, with self-determination, internationally.

    Even Machiavelli (alleged evil manipulator) would be horrified at how his satire has been seized to achieve the short term benefits (to some), but ignoring the far greater devastation as a consequence of which he also warned:


    • Impending Sky

      “…a warlord society in which all people were raised to be combatants, everyone lived behind castle walls and moats…”

      Perhaps Marvin Louis Guy should have built a wall and a moat. A window that a peace officer can climb through seems like a poor choice given what happened here.

  • Goldminer77

    Tell the SWAT teams to wear visible, normal police uniforms and not dress like hoody thugs. That would be one good move. And why not knock on the door first, too? I am sure the house would have been surrounded already. I suspect, too, that the home was not in a ghetto or surrounded by druggies or illegals and you know the police knew that.

  • Bruce C.

    You know another way to end the drug war? Stop consuming illegal drugs. No sales, no usage, no war.

    • Impending Sky

      Yes, things would not be so bad if only people obeyed the authoritarians.

      • Bruce C.

        Things also wouldn’t be so bad if a lot of people weren’t f***ed up on drugs. Hard drug use and especially abuse causes a lot of problems in all kinds of ways. The fact that so many are obviously addicted indicates that the real enemy are the suppliers. Starve the beast.

        • Impending Sky

          Another episode of Government Knows Best, or perhaps just a re-run.

        • Isefree

          Your argument is limp. It’s also certain that people f**k themselves up on alcohol and reckless driving and legal drugs. But they are not illegal. And it is a certainty that the violence and social upheaval today re: alcohol pales in comparison
          to when alcohol was illegal. If you wish to be regarded by your masters as no more responsible than an infant, or child, that’s your business. I’d prefer to make my own choices regarding my life whether you or your masters like or not.

          • Bruce C.

            My argument may be limp, but yours is lame. (btw “reckless driving” is illegal, as is driving with open alcohol or impaired by alcohol. I wouldn’t want to get caught while high on legal drugs either, especially if I was driving recklessly.)

            If you had a child who was addicted to, say, cocaine or heroin and was concerned about his well being, would you try to help stop the drug use or would you join a local rally to stop the drug war? I’m not sure why it’s different on a national level.

          • Isefree

            I would try and help my child if he wanted help. But I wouldn’t do that by outlawing the drug or demonizing
            the person who he bought the drugs from. My child must want to help himself. He decided to use those drugs
            and he has to decide to stop. He may need help in becoming independent of the drugs but he must decide that, too. Would you call the Pharmacist or your doctor the enemy because you became addicted drugs that deadened your pain from a surgery, for example? Would you call for outlawing alcoholic beverages because people might drive while drunk and harm other and themselves. In my first post I meant would you outlaw driving because driving is inherently dangerous and every year tens of thousands of people die in the states when no alcohol is involved?

            Stopping the drug wars is a political issue; helping my child or a friend is a personal matter. You can do both, wouldn’t you think?

          • Bruce C.

            My original comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek but it also makes some basic sense in that since “the drug war” is so corrupt and political and even US “backed” then isn’t the easier, healthier, and more “clever” approach to stop the the source of it all – demand? Think about it, even if the drug war were successful in stopping all supply (I realize it’s also about punishing those who demand, but that aside) what of those who need/want/demand the drugs? The real problem isn’t solved. That’s the real problem and may even lead to the crazy mentality of the drug war itself.

          • Isefree

            I’m not sure I follow your argument.

            How do you stop the demand for drugs? Most people I know use illegal drugs because they enjoy it. It’s not a problem for them. The problem for them is the prohibition of the drugs and being treated like criminals for engaging in peaceful and voluntary trades. The real crime is the drug laws, and the criminals are the people who make these “laws” and those who enforce them and do great harm to innocent people.

          • Bruce C.

            How can people who break known laws be “innocent”? People who manufacture/sell/use illegal substances are treated like criminals because of that, not because they engage in “peaceful and voluntary trades.”

            Just because you personally disagree with a law does not give you the moral authority to violate it. If you do, you take your chances of the consequences. Now, considering how draconian the consequences can be isn’t it curious to you that one would pursue it anyway? Consider that one of the tell tale signs of an addiction – if not it’s working definition – is the continual pursuit or use of something that one consciously knows may have deleterious consequences. So, the “most of the people you know who use drugs because they enjoy it” are not being honest. Given the consequences it’s not rational. If they “get caught” it will then be a problem for them. Stop the use and you end the potential problem.

            Now, you may say that’s their business and I would agree with you, but there’s a larger issue involved. Those people are not being honest either with themselves or with the society they live in. On what grounds do they claim their “right” to violate illegal substance laws? Whatever your/their answer, would that also apply to any other laws? Would it apply to other people as well? What all of this leads to anarchy. Do you value the rule of law or consider it “primitive?” Are you okay with other people who violate other laws that they don’t agree with? Should there be no punishment for the violation of laws? Or, equivalently, should there be no laws at all thus making everything “legal?”

            The fact that the “drug war” is a racket is beside the point. Some people think the way to end it is to end all illegal substance laws, but that will only end the racket. It would not solve the nihilistic problems within the culture, only bury them.

          • Impending Sky

            Prohibition does not solve cultural problems, but increases them. Individuals can solve social issues by becoming active in their communities.

            If we start from the premise that the stated intentions of prohibition are honest; That the prohibitionists simply wish to cure social ills, we could consider the prohibitionists innocent if not naive. ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions.’

            However if the prohibitionist witnesses his folly (or chooses to remain ignorant of it) while continuing his failed policies, we must call his motives into question. The conclusion many would come to is that the law and the application of it is unjust, corrupt, and criminal. Therefore, the individuals defying the tyranny of the state within black markets are not criminals (in the broader sense) or anti-social, but righteous men acting upon their conscience.

            In this way we can see that what you so narrowly define as crime is an essential and beneficial feature. We all benefit when the laws of tyrants are flouted. If enough people have contempt for a law, it can hardly be considered just. For this reason the English common law system allows for nullification.

            Imagine if enough people simply refused to file taxes. Would that be criminal in your view? Would you lament the fact that the law was unenforceable? If draconian measures such as the abolition of cash were enacted, would you blame the tyrant or the individuals seeking freedom?

            The anti-social criminals would be those calling for imprisonment and violations of human liberty. More to the point, breaking into someone’s home at 5:30 am can hardly be construed as anything else.

          • Bruce C.

            I agree completely that “the drug war” is bad and corrupt, etc. I’m just saying that something seems cockeyed about anti-drug laws being eliminated and the drug culture remaining intact. Is that an improvement? I don’t know, but we shall see because I think that’s what’s going to happen.

          • Bruce, please see the history of drug use/abuse and societal problems since Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001. This is a fascinating 15-years-on review of what happened in response to the decriminalization as re. the “drug culture,” as you put it, in Portugal: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf

            Some of what this reveals is kind of counterintuitive, admittedly, as one would expect use of a desired substance to increase once that substance is legalized. That has not played out, however.

            A big concern for many people is increased teen use in response to legalizing either medical or recreational cannabis. The Lancet found that to not be the case: http://www.forbes.com/sites/debraborchardt/2015/06/15/legalized-medical-marijuana-doesnt-increase-teen-usage/
            The Forbes article explains in both Colorado and California, legalization did not increase teens’ use of it.

            Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) has tons of good material at their site, too. (Try http://www.leap.cc/about/why-legalize-drugs/)

            The thing about Portugal, which is the same argument being made in the UN leading to the end of the drug war in April 2016 at UNGASS, is that treating drug abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal offense is far more effective when it comes to actually reducing the “drug problem.” Busting some teenager with a half-smoked joint in his pocket, which in most of the US leads to literally thousands of dollars in fines/UA costs/classes/etc. and the loss of any potential to go to college (no more financial aid after one’s busted) or get a job is clearly not effective in any way except to create another jaded, angry, defeated and essentially helpless to do anything about it member of the public assistance rolls, in most cases. However one feels about legalization/decriminalization, it’s undeniable that SOMEthing must be changed from what’s in place now, yes?

          • Bruce C.

            Definitely. Frankly this discussion has gone astray from my original thought about “the drug war”. I was looking at it from the POV of various individual relationships to it. Some people (like me) have very little expereince with the whole complex. I don’t use drugs (other than alcohol) and I nor any friends, etc. have had any issues with DEA et al, so I don’t have any personal experiences or grudges about it. I do, however, empathize with those who do become embroiled in one way or another and I recognize the basic framework of the whole bureaucracy and its corruption. There are also some who want to use certain substances that are currently illegal and justify their risks in their own way, but I was pointing out that that is a little narcissistic and may be due to a certain level of addiction. However, addiction aside, their dislike of the drug war could be due to both a personal threat and the same kind of empathy that I feel for others who may become embroiled. They could liken the situation to something like the poaching of animals for some unique and “valuable” whatever (ivory, fur, skin, etc.). People like that could “make a difference” by choosing not to buy/use the by-products of said animals, thereby creating less demand and possibly making their poaching uneconomic or not worth the risk. That might be a long shot and not effective but it is the logical basis for “conservation” and basic economic supply and demand. Thus users who are free to choose could help lessen the drug war that hurts people by choosing not to feed the dynamic by adding to the demand for drugs. Addicts may not have much choice.

            I also realize that much of what I’m saying is moot in terms of what the trend seems to be because the drug laws are probably going to be lifted regardless of the levels of use. I just think it’s ironic and a little hypocritical and narcissistic that the very people who could impact the “war” the most by slowing/stopping its driving force are the very ones who complain the most about it.

          • Isefree

            A person is innocent in my book if he’s done no harm to another. If he breaks the drug laws and is punished by the state he’s a victim.

            In a free society laws are supposed to uphold a person’s right to his own life; to conduct his life as he sees fit; to use his property as he sees fit. Our freedoms end at our property line: at our person and property. Legitimate laws
            call for punishment of persons who aggress against their fellow man and his property: punishment of those who threaten to harm their fellow man if he does not do what they want him to do, if they take, steal, extort, kidnap, murder, damage that person or their property.

            Politicians and their bureaucrats are human beings just like you and me. They have the same right to their life and property as each of us does, no more, no less. So when they create laws that violate those rights they’ve over stepped their boundaries. They are acting as criminals. The drug laws are just some of the many laws that are immoral and illegitimate based on the principle that a person’s life belongs to that person, not to you or me or the politicians, or “The People”, or the Majority,or the Society or whatever you want to call other persons.

            I support the violation of any so called law that violates the human rights I’ve described. Each person must decide for himself if it is worth the risk of being arrested and punished. I pay taxes not because I agree with the tax laws. My friends, btw, are acting quite rationally: they have decided that it is worth taking the risk to enjoy
            their “illicit substance”. They are careful and do not deal with strangers.

            By the same token I support legitimate law that punish kidnapping, murder, fraud, extortion, theft, any acts of aggression against persons and their property. If the politicians limited their power to upholding human freedom, the same power each of us has, I could live with that kind of limited state though I’d prefer governance with out a state, without a ruling class that feeds off the productive people in society, who force those who produce wealth to support those who don’t, themselves first.

            But my years in this world tells me the state is a powerful magnet for power hungry people, people who enjoy ruling others and who are very good at convincing the rest of us that without their “benevolent” paternalistic rule we could not survive.

          • Bruce C.

            A person is innocent if he’s done no harm to another? That’s one sense of the word but if you knowingly violate a law then you are not innocent legally. But semantics aside, why do you think that if people pick and choose the laws they are going to follow based upon their own reasons that they are not harming anyone? You are harming the integrity of the society you live in which indirectly affects everyone else. If everyone did that there would be anarchy. Not following the laws undermines the rule of law. Undesirable laws are supposed to be changed legislatively, not by ignoring them.

            Furthermore, the argument that a person has the right to conduct his life as he sees fit is also dicey when it comes to drug use. Your friends may not be addicted and so they may be acting “rationally”, but what about those who are addicted and “can’t”? I don’t know the numbers, but I suspect most drug use in this country is abusive and not just recreational. But if it’s actually the other way around, that most drug use/sales are to those who aren’t addicted then my suggestion is doubly sound. Since the people who despise the drug laws the most are those who may become ensnared by them, wouldn’t the easier and “better” way to end the “drug war” be to just stop consuming them? I agree that we can’t count on addicts to abstain, but why can’t those who aren’t? It’s clearly not easy to change the drug laws legislatively, but by significantly slowing drug activity the DEA would become less active.

          • Isefree

            So the slaves in the South were “harming the integrity of the society” when they escaped
            to northern states and Canada, and so were the people who helped them? And when blacks and whites in the South refused to obey Jim Crow laws they were “harming the integrity of the society”? And of course, they were undermining the rule of law.

            Come to think of it, in one sense, you’re right, but not in the way I think you meant it. When people break unjust laws not by harming others as I mean it, but by ignoring them in their daily lives or through civil disobedience they are “harming” the integrity of the status quo, the power structure. They are upsetting the apple cart and the people in power don’t like that.

            The rule of law is undermined by the politicians who make the laws when they over step their boundary as human beings in relation to their fellowmen as I pointed out previously. They violate the inherent nature of man to determine his own life, and so engender resentment, strife, violence, murder and corruption which is the drug war today in a nutshell.

            “…What about other people who are addicted and “can’t?”
            Like people who have problems with alcohol and “can’t” they can seek help.

            Your “solution” to the drug war is beyond the pale, out of touch with human reality. Your logic, “wouldn’t the easier and “better” way to end the “drug war” be to just stop consuming them?” begins and ends in your mind.
            And furthermore the DEA does not want the drug war to end. You have a naive view of how govt. actually works. You might gain some breadth and depth to your thinking if you read critics of the state. And there are plenty of thoughtful ones if you are curious.

          • Bruce C.

            Fortunately for you and those with similar views my beyond the pale “solution” won’t be used, but it still makes basic sense. If any one individual stops using drugs the chances and extent of being affected by the drug war drops significantly, so that’s a very practical way of “ending the drug war” personally. Therefore, by extension, if many people did that they too would be less affected and possibly to the point of the whole enterprise fading away. That may sound foolish and naive but the fact remains that individuals form/create their own personal realities, and you get what you concentrate upon. That fact is often glossed over because most people don’t believe that, believing instead that we all live in one objective world and subject to all kinds of random forces and victimization. Instead, such mass realities like “the war on drugs” are the result of many individuals contributing to its construction via their own personal beliefs and expectations. Each of us has a hand in all mass events and so each are responsible for them to some extent. So, you are right that my “solution” begins and ends in my mind, but so do all solutions, including yours. I may not be an expert on the machinations of government but I do know that “we” get the government that we deserve, and by that I mean what we believe in and project outward.

          • Isefree

            The way to end the drug war is to end the anti-drug laws. Just as the war against alcohol was ended. While far fetched this solution is not as farfetched as trying to convince all people to stop doing things they enjoy doing.
            Some power hungry people realize that being ham-fisted about drugs is not profitable for the government nor popular with the voters. They are beginning the process of legalizing drugs, so that the commercial production of drugs can come up into the light of legality and presto!! be TAXED. Now those are smart criminals, I mean duly elected and honorable representatives of the people. (Pardon my cynicism.) There is a palpable incentive here, while there is none with your solution.

            That’s part of what I mean by the logic beginning and ending in your head. There is no real, touchable incentive; just your opinion that has no precedent in the real world. Whereas taxing a product that is legal is a very real incentive for those who benefit from the confiscation of other people’s property. It is already ongoing and well established.

          • Bruce C.

            What an ironic answer. I’m saying that you can avoid the bulk of the problems of the drug war by stop feeding the system, and you say the solution is to convert the system from a government’s expense to one of revenue! I guess the consolation for users is just possibly paying more and having an even bigger and more entrenched government, in return for it not hassling them in that one area (unless you have too much, or in case you sell it, or it’s not synthesized to spec, or you don’t pay taxes on it, etc.)

            I’m just curious, what’s your solution for big government in general, making it global?

          • Isefree

            That’s not my solution, that is what’s happening. What do you think the legalization of marijuana in various states will produce now that people are free to start and are establishing marijuana business? Those businesses will be taxed, right?

            My solution for big government? I have none. I can only say that as long as most people believe the state to be a beneficent institution and not predatory one that it really is; as long as people are unwilling to take full responsibility for their lives and live as free people; and are willing to let the politicians and their bureaucrats assume that responsibility in the various ways they do, then we will have, and do have now big, intrusive, oppressive governments. A police state if you will. More and more laws, less and less freedom. Read Bevin Chu post below as example of an outrageous law passed by the state of Oklahoma. Fodder for the comedian. Delightful!!

          • Bruce C.

            I understand that’s what’s happening and I’m surprised that more people aren’t opposing the taxation issue. They seem to be willing to trade that for partial legalization. To me that’s a cop out.

          • Isefree

            That’s politics, Bruce. BTW my name is Art. Those who are politically active in achieving the goal of drug legalization will accept positive steps toward that goal. I don’t think the tax argument has been as well publicized as the medicinal one. I think most people accept taxation as, at worst, a necessary evil. They just don’t want too much stolen from them. The tax will be on the producers and if they can net a good profit after tax they won’t complain.

            Even some libertarian anarchists who are morally opposed to the state and whose goal is a stateless, private law society will engage in traditional politics if the particular goal is to reduce the power of the state and increase the individual’s control over his own life. Others will not engage in politics but will engage in various efforts to educate individuals, write essay, books, speak, blog, etc.

          • Compared to even just the financial costs of the penalties for being ticketed/arrested for having even a tiny amount of cannabis (in the US, at least), taxes are likely nothing in comparison.

          • Bruce C.

            Well Art, it’s been an interesting discussion. I think we have very different points of view, or you have presented many that others have. Some people focus on ending the evils of “the drug war” and believe decriminalization would do that while others just want drugs to be legal (to sell it for a profit or use it) and don’t particularly care about the drug war per se. Some want the drug war to end because it is an unConstitutional domain of government and some want the government to stop wasting money on enforcement and seek revenue through taxation instead, and may even like big government.

            Obviously none of those people would want drug usage itself to stop. That’s an unspoken assumption. It’s not that it’s unrealistic it’s just not desired for one reason or another, and that’s not the same thing. We shall see if Americans ever “throw off” their government once they realize they are about to be subject to “absolute tyranny”, as the Declaration says. Maybe it’s already too late, but if most people think like you’ve described then it may not matter because the level of sacrifice they are willing to endure is way too little, and the level of pragmatism they’ll accept way to great. Legalized drugs are like “bread and circuses.”

            Thanks for the debate.

          • Just came across this newly released report, “The impact of drug policy on human rights: The experience in the Americas.” Very interesting and offers a look at impacts of the Drug War beyond just the info we’re usually exposed to on US/Canada/Europe, so thought it was worth sharing here.


          • Isefree

            And thank you, Bruce. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed our discussion because not only do we have different points of view but we were willing to discuss them in a reasonable and civil manner. As my life goes on I’ve come to accept my sometimes profound differences with others, esp. with people I love. I’m more at peace with who I am; I have a more honest view of myself and find it easier to look at myself, foibles and all; to not fear what I see in myself that I may not admire. Critical self-reflection is the process, however bumpy, by which I have changed and grown.

  • Pilgrim

    “Experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    • Bruce C.

      The question is, can they recognize when they are about to succumb to “absolute Despotism” and will they have the will/courage to throw it off?

      • And, at what point is it too late to throw it off? Many would argue the US (and other nations) is past that point.

        • Bruce C.

          It’s too late when people believe it is. Either they believe the state/government is too powerful or they don’t want to suffer the consequences they believe would be involved in trying to throw it off (e.g., inconveniences, pain, death, physical combat, killing others, poverty, starvation, etc.). Interestingly, it might also be when people don’t know how to, which is where I think the US is.

      • Bill Ross

        Despotism is achieved at the expense of others. The despots themselves are in an artificial social / economic environment, propped up by their delusions and other peoples money. They won`t notice until it can no longer be afforded to pay the apparatus of state to protect them from their victims, then the walls (of their artificial reality) come crashing down.

        Historically, their hubris and delusions prevent them from seeing their approaching doom and their behavior that created it. They are always surprised and caught off guard. Don`t expect an intelligent or timely course correction from despots or, for that matter your fellow citizens who are equally deluded with faith / dependency on the infallible state.

        Ask any citizen of the late, not so great USSR. It shocked them far greater than it did us.

        • Bruce C.

          Interesting. You interpreted that line (from the Declaration) from the POV of the despots.

          • Bill Ross

            You must have noticed: Pondering all comprehensible POV`s (environmental positions) is the path to truth.

          • Bruce C.

            The last phrase, “and to provide new Guards for their security” is a little creepy.

          • Bill Ross

            of no authority… `we, the people`always have been and always will be the final line in the sand against tyranny.

            Our ancestors were not superhuman. They were backed into a corner by tyranny and responded as they had to, as we will.

          • Bruce C.

            Yes, but I’m saying that “external” leadership is an implied constant, hopefully limited by “we the people” (even though “we’re” disposed to suffer the sufferable until we see the writing on the wall and then, hopefully, throw off such government. Rinse and repeat.)

          • Bill Ross

            “external” leadership

            an oxymoron. People willingly follow leaders, or, they are ruled. I think you meant to state: rulers implied.

            Now, follow Spooner (or me) to logical conclusions.

          • Bruce C.

            “External” as in “Guards”, an explicit delegation of duty to provide future security.

          • Bill Ross

            Quis custodes custodit?

  • tom

    It doesn’t have to involve drugs, and it happens in other Western countries. Check this out, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

    Tony Martin had been burgled as many as ten times, losing a great deal of property, without ever getting a useful response from police. (Actually protecting him was even more inconceivable – it would have been inconvenient, you see). When two men broke into his house in the night time, he fired at them with his shotgun, killing one.

    Martin got three years in jail, and now he has been released he is in hiding for the rest of his life. The relatives and associates of the burglars – believe this or not – have made it known that they have put out a contract on his life! Yet the British justice system, which did nothing to protect his life or his property, punished Martin.

    • Gil G

      Oh wait the link makes it clear it’s not as simple as that. Namely even in the U.S. there is a certain provision for ending an immediate threat as opposed to shooting others dead willy-nilly even if they are on your property. Unlike the U.S. it is a standard legal view in the West is that people trump property which is to say unless there’s a clear threat of danger you can’t shoot at someone.

  • Patrick Riley

    Since it just so happens that the US government (the CIA is still part of it, right?) is the world’s largest drug smuggler, how does this impact the conversation?

    • Bill Ross

      it would, if the conversation were honest, on both sides. Otherwise, “move on, nothing to see here”

      • Patrick Riley

        That is a non-statement. The root cause of the problem under discussion is extreme enforcement of government drug laws by police forces that are armed with full-up military weaponry by the entity that is bringing hundreds of billions of dollars of the very same illegal drugs into the US market in violation of its own laws.

  • Oakley

    How exactly is a homeowner, in the dark, in the middle of the night, supposed to be able to tell who is breaking into his home? He is awakened from a sound sleep and must decide what to do in just a few seconds. Is it a home invasion or a “no knock” raid at the wrong house? Too many people have been injured or killed on both sides. It’s time to end this practice!

  • Pilgrim

    From the article: “They were acting on a bogus tip from an informant who promised that bags of cocaine would be found. Nothing of the kind was recovered.” I hope the guy who lied about the cocaine will be found guilty of manslaughter.

  • Christan

    This is amplified when the police raid the wrong house. A criminal knows he is bound to get caught at some point. However a regular person has no reason to think police will be coming to his domicile in the middle of the night.

  • Harvey Wallbanger

    Put me in the jury box. A fully informed jury should be able to take care of this in just a little while.

    • Unfortunately people who think this way are far and few in between. Your average guy just sees “Guy shooting cop” and the prosecution will do what they can to protect the cop and make the cop the victim. No one should be punished from defending themselves from thugs whether they be private (street gang, mobster, etc) or government.

    • Besides, if you feel that way, the prosecutor would insure you are not selected for the jury.

      • Harvey Wallbanger

        Yep. That has pretty much happened to me. I was in the final selection for a federal drug case when the district judge said something like “is there anyone with any other reason they think they may be ineligible, unfit, or otherwise not able to set in the jury box? I raised my hand, and when recognized asked to approach the bench.

        I told the judge I do not think the federal government has the authority to make drugs illegal and would vote accordingly. a little back and forth and the judge thanked me for being candid.

        I have been called for jury duty a since (small community) but never for a drug case.

        • I suspect many jury nullification advocates would have warned you not to show your hand in advance, but merely vote no during deliberations to prevent the system from selectively filtering you out.

          • Harvey Wallbanger

            Yep. I knew about that.

          • Martin the American redux

            ‘Jury nullification’, good point.

        • Martin the American redux

          I understand that the jury you made yourself ineligible for was a different case from the one in the article. What I do not understand is why you became ineligible merely because you think k federal drug laws should be considered unauthorized. You do understand that it is still the law, right. After all, I consider federal tax laws to be unauthorized, yet the IRS never has a problem taking my money.

          • Harvey Wallbanger

            I understand it is still the law. I also believe I can vote not guilty if I think the law is not fair as applied in a situation. So I will do so.

  • ron17571

    This smashing doors down at three in the morning while yelling and screaming at people and shooting folks who jump out of bed and grab a gun.Really should just end. Much stronger doors could solve people a lot of problems. Same with letting people have the freedom to decide if they want to do drugs or not. As long as people’s drug use has no adverse effect on me. I visited Holland many years ago and people could buy drugs if they looked for them,It wasn’t out in the open.If a person had a problem from their use,They were just taken to a rehab center.Not slammed into a prison,which would cause much more problems. It’s a freedom issue with me.

    • “Much stronger doors could solve people a lot of problems.”

      Sad to say, not really.

      To wit, new laws against “fortification”.

      Oklahoma has a new law that makes it a crime to “fortify” a citizen’s home. The law states that to “fortify an access point” means to willfully construct, install, position, use or hold any material or device designed to injure a person upon entry or to strengthen, defend, restrict or obstruct any door, window or other opening into a dwelling, structure, building or other place to any extent beyond the security provided by a commercial alarm system, lock or deadbolt, or a combination of alarm, lock or deadbolt.

      The crime family with a flag known as “The Government” really isn’t interested in reasonable solutions. Its concern is leaving “mere mundanes” totally defenseless so that it can ensure obedience. The outlawing of firearms is merely one piece of the larger plan.

      • Wow! Unbelievable. What lobbying group was behind this? What excuses did they use to push it through? Who sponsored the bill? Statewide or local?

        • This happened to be Oklahoma. But Illinois, New York, and other states are considering similar laws as well.

          Australia has already used this kind of law against Ozzie bikers.

          Like I said, people who seek government power are generally sociopaths obsessed with “control”. Specifically of ordinary citizens like you and me.

        • By the way, did you know laws forbidding “mere mundanes” such as us from owning and wearing body armor are also being considered?

          • Now what could possibly be the reasoning behind that?

          • Impending Sky

            Authoritarians like to rationalize these prohibitions with examples like the famous North Hollywood shootout and bank robbery.


          • Dear Lewie,
            Knowing you, I know that’s ironic humor!

            But for others who may not be on the same page:
            The reasoning is that the PTB see themselves as a special and privileged ruling class. The rest of us are “mere mundanes” who lack their exalted wisdom.
            Therefore they can’t have us defying their will, and more importantly, in possession of the means to defy their will.
            Hence the selective denial of gun ownership and even body armor ownership.

          • Seems so obvious but I guess I should start using sarcasm tags.

            Only those with something to hide fear government surveillance.

          • LOL!

      • notwithabang

        Incredible how scared Big Mother really is. Thanks for sharing this disturbing information.

        • Absolutely!
          It’s the psychological nature of those who seek political power.
          Left liberal, right conservative. centrist.
          As long as they seek to use government force against others to achieve “higher aims”, and are not content merely to live and let live, they’re the problem, not the solution.

      • James Freeman

        Time to enfoce the castle law!

      • Praetor

        Excellent, Bevin, most people focus on the U.S., but its the world of ‘we the people’ being attacked by the international crime syndicate. Thanks.

      • ron17571

        If and when the cops figure out that you have a beefed up your doors and any way into your home,You already have other problems going on.And in a SHTF world,this could be a good business to be in.(Home security products) I have considered moving to other states.I look at gun laws and taxes and i am saddened by what i see.

      • Turns out, this law was passed in 2009 in Oklahoma, (and other states have similar laws in place). The laws explicitly state (not that they will be enforced this way) that this pertains to dwellings in which “criminal activity” is taking place. From Infowars (which I must quote because the original article at the Tulsa Beacon is gone): … a bill that makes it unlawful for “any person to willfully fortify an access point into any dwelling, structure, building or other place where a felony offense prohibited by the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act is being committed, or attempted, and the fortification is for the purpose of preventing or delaying entry or access by a law enforcement officer, or to harm or injure a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties.”

        Very interesting discussion of New Jersey’s similar law re. “booby trapping or fortifying premises used to distribute controlled dangerous substances” here, in a appellate case summary: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2006/a3632-02-opn.html

  • InalienableWrights

    Things are a changing…. if you rightly kill one of these CRIMINAL home
    invaders, you have a good chance IMHO of a jury letting you walk….

  • DavidMacko

    All federal drug laws should be repealed since they are unconstitutional and create a police state such as we have now. All state drug laws except those which punish providers of drugs to children without their parents informed consent should also be repealed. All no knock raids, except to rescue victims in fear of their lives, and kidnap and rape victims, should be repealed. The cops got what they deserved, in this instance. Lets hope that the innocent citizen receives justice although, nowadays, that is seldom certain.

    • James Freeman

      Amen David.
      It is no natural law for humanity to use what God and nature freely gives.
      It is time that the medical proffesion, and government to realize that they don’t own people.
      People have the natural right to control their own life ( as long as it does not infringe on others.
      The real crime of humanity, is when they are forcebly put in a prisson for doing what is natural.

  • davidnrobyn

    What amazes me in this scenario is that Mr. Guy is still alive.

    • Joelg

      If Mr. Guy had not had a gun that he was proficient at using, then he might very well have been dead as a victim of the police raid. And he may yet be dead, if the government persecutors can sway 12 robotic jurors to ignore the context, as is routine in medical marijuana cases brought by USA.gov. Even if Mr. Guy wins a jury trial, he may very well be broke and lose his home if he has to foot the legal costs of a murder trial. The collective weight of federal, state and local governments with their almost unlimited taxpayer-funded resources can be crushing (as Kenneth Starr proved in his co-persecutions of persons associated with president Bill Clinton and the contrived Whitewater case that cost taxpayers $200 million).

      Even within the War on Drugs, if there was so much cocaine (as the tip alleged), the police could have just as easily knocked on the door with a warrant (and had the house surrounded, and shutoff the water supply so evidence could not be flushed down the drain). Thus, with or without a War on Drugs, this was an apparent abuse of police power. At the very least, an episode of outright stupidity that flows from the arrogance of Government Entities having too much unrestrained, raw, naked police power.

      Maybe Mr. Guy’s case is what the Founding Fathers had in mind with the right to bear arms to protect oneself against unfettered tyranny by the state. If Shane’s facts are right, then this acting on a bogus tip is police state arrogance and tyranny that is quite independent of the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is just an Excuse, like 9-11 was an Excuse for the NSA and Police State to run arrogant and unchecked under the False Flag Banner of the War on Terror. Tyranny is like a Cancer running unchecked, and the War on Drugs is only one of its many manifestations and guises. Even shutting down the War on Drugs will be just one of many needed Whack-a-Mole actions…

      • davidnrobyn

        Easy, Joelg! I only meant that in light of the fact that Mr. Guy was only one man with a gun and there were several armed police officers present, it’s just amazing that they didn’t just shoot him down. Especially since killing a cop is often grounds for summary execution, from what I read and hear.

  • L.C. in Texas

    The only way to stop judicial abuse is to enforce common Law, which follows the Bill of Rights and educate the people with copies of the “Juror’s Handbook” (which can be gotten FREE).

    • Joelg

      Link to Juror’s Hndbk [http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf]

      • L.C. in Texas

        Thank You!

  • James Freeman

    A killing is either self defence or murder, dose not matter if some one is wearing a costume, called a uniform or not.
    If a police person, or a military person goes on another persons turf, that is agression, if an agessive person ( police, military or anyone ), kills the one agressed on, it is murder plain and simple, and the agressor must be given the just penalty for their horrendous crime.
    Let’s get back to natural laws of nature (instead of phoney, man made codes), that states ‘ A person has the natural right to protect their self and their loved ones against the agressors.
    Has anyone ever heard of the rights of government, or the rights of military, or the rights of coporations that rape mother earth, like they own it?. The natural rights of humanity is a given and is a natural right, way beyond written history

  • Troy Scheffler

    Well this raises a question, should police also be charged when what they thought was a firearm turns out to be a water pistol after they shoot and kill?

  • Martin the American redux

    First off, I am not against the legalization of drugs, I do not think it will increase the amount of abusers.
    In fact, it may cut down on underaged abusers. I also nearly know that it would cut prison populations by at least 1/2. Likely, it would greatly reduce the number of instances similar to the Texas case in the article.
    That said, the day for legalization hasn’t come yet. With this case, the article does not present enough facts for even a maniac to make a decision.

  • I could not agree more!

  • davidnrobyn

    Wow, Shane. Your last paragraph was a great one. Almost a throwback to a more literate time. Bravo!

  • Dwight Class

    Lets start with the presumption that The People have Constitutionally protected Rights, that within those Rights we exercised The Right to self Government. Further confirmation of those Rights is the fact that by and through Congressional mandate, the Highway Safety Act of 1966, recognize a state and the Political subdivision of the State shall be allotted ‘Federal funding’ at a rate of 60% to the state and 40% to the W-9 Government defined ‘Political subdivision’. OK so what does this have to do with the police kicking in your door or any of the other 4th and 5th Amendment violations committed against The People, labor/management? The first mistake is in believing that we have a Government, when all pubic officers relinquished their Citizenship to the UN in 1945 and have since used the Government offices to further their own DBA by company name also traded as by STATE OF XXXXXX agenda, insider trading Title 15. We have a police department and Sheriff department in name only, the Oath is perjury to perform the function of private security/private contractors as agent to the principal DBA by company name. Two forms of license exist, Government/commercial under the United States Coast Guard, Title 49 commercial and the NAICS classified ‘franchise’ issuing a non-government license, aka THE STATE OF XXXXX as Plaintiff to the docket/citation, that enacted a code violation/private security enforcement stealing the federal funding,40% allotted to the venue/W-9 Government body the ‘Police/private security took the Oath to. Our signature to accept a non-government franchise classified license has allowed access to our 4th and5th Amendment property Rights, 31 CFR 363.33. Rodney Class has already filed an action into the Office of Administrative Hearing, State of North Carolina on this very issue. I can send this editor any and all facts/Laws in support including the opinion in that case made by the Attorney General that the Office Office of Administrative Hearing lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, because the officesnamed as bodies/agents of Government, the police, state trooper and municipal court are ALL private contractors. Two PDF opinion with docket numbers. Neither the W-9 Government local judge or DA, actually represent The People or public W-9 office. The Attorney General does not represent The People, that office represents agencies and offices of STATE. Failure to disclose the intent and commercial value of the non-government license/signature of acceptance and failure to disclose their corporate/vested interest is part of our 5 USC 705 administrative Remedy. Suggested reading/research is 36 USC 70501 Federal Charter BAR and Organization Immunities Act of 1945.

  • Excellent article and also some good commentary. Good points I will remember and use in writing or on radio. I am also going to send this out to my sound asleep “law and order” friends.