Current events

The People Declaring War on the Police Should Really Think About What They Are Saying

By J-Dub

The other day, Turtle Boy pointed out that one of the Boston anti-police protestors made a literal declaration of war against the police.

I love the part when the kid says, “no more peace talks, it’s war out here now.” That would be sweet. I’d love to see how this dooshnozzle held up in a “war” against the Boston Police. Let’s be honest, society is better off without him. There is a 0.0% chance he will ever contribute anything meaningful to society. He just declared “war” on the police. In wars you shoot at the enemy. He’s basically saying that he plans on killing every cop he sees.

What Turtle Boy says is only partially true.  According to the people at Merriam-Webster, war is defined specifically as:

I.

  • A: (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
  • B: the art or science of warfare
  • C:: (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

II.

  • A: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism
  • B: a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>
  • C:: variance, odds

That first one is the one with the most kick in this discussion. When you couple that with the most commonly accepted definition of  “war” as construed under international law, a declaration of war runs exactly counter to everything the anti-police crowd wants. Let me break it down for you.  I’ll start with the dictionary part.

“A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations”

For purposes of this discussion, we’ll call the protestors a state, and we’ll accord the same status to the police.  This means now all the cards are on the table; there’s no secrets anymore.  You pledge allegiance to one side or the other, and now its time to settle it all on the field of battle. When you consider what that really means, it becomes easy to understand the concept of war from the standpoint of international law. There, war means the failure of every other means of conflict resolution.  That also means after a declaration of war, the rules of war apply, which means all combatants on either side are “fair game.”

That’s only the first part of why declaring war on the police runs completely counter to what the anti-police crowd want. You’ve been accusing them for years of simply shooting people down in the streets.  A declaration of war makes it legal for them to do that do you. Once you announce to the world you are going to start shooting cops, the world is going make you play fair and let them shoot back. I’ll come back to this point later.

That raises another important point about wars. A huge component of victory in a war is is the winning of “hearts and minds.” Well, Mr. Protestor, you have absolutely no shot to do that. None. You need to remember that you live in a world where after 9/11, the Marathon bombing, and fifteen years of war, there’s a vast majority of people in this country who are thankful everyday for the people who protect them on a daily basis. You will never convert those people to your point of view by chaining yourself to barrels on the highway and defending criminals who the majority of people see as dangerous to society.

Not to mention, there’s another major problem in the “hearts and minds” department for you, Mr. Protestor. People understand when a combatant in a war gets killed. They don’t like it, but they understand the risks taken by those who wear the uniform. That doesn’t just apply to the military; once acts of war were brought to our shores, that feeling was extended to the police as well. That’s why we honor those people in the ways we do.

The reason for that is rather simple.  It takes a special kind of person to wake up every morning and put a target on their back in order to protect somebody else.  It doesn’t matter whether that person is fighting terrorists in some third-world hellhole or taking on a bank-robber armed with a shotgun, putting your life on the line for the sake of others is a noble act, and anybody who is being intellectually honest knows that.

Then there’s the matter of preparation for war.  War is about so much more than buying some camouflage clothing, guns, and painting your face like Rambo. There’s issues like having a communication infrastructure, having the weapons and the training to use and maintain them, transportation to move men and material to and from the battlefield, and let’s not forget having the manpower and having those people properly trained in the role they are to perform. Let’s face it, the cops have all that right now; it would take months if not years for a bunch of protestors to mount anything more than a terror campaign. Not to mention if the only weapon the protestors have is to start tossing Molotov cocktails into police stations, they are only compounding their “hearts and minds” problem.

“War as an instrument of conflict resolution”

This is the part where we get into the international law component of this. This is also the part where Mr. Protestor seriously needs to re-think this whole declaration of war thing. As I’ve already said, war is the end-point for conflict resolution. Negotiation, diplomacy, and even threats have all failed when civilized nations decide to go to war. When countries like those who signed the Geneva Conventions decide war is the only alternative, then the killing of combatants is all nice and legal, unless they’ve already surrendered and are prisoners of war.

In case you hadn’t thought of this, Mr. Protestor, not only are the cops more prepared for a war, but they also have an incredible logistical advantage in terms of bases from which to wage a war.  Give that some hard thought as to what that means.  Not only do the police have a station in every neighborhood in every city in this country; a station which can easily be converted into a fortified barracks, supply depot, and arsenal….but you don’t.  All of you “we want a war” protestors are going to be really easy to pick off one-by-one when you leave the battlefield to go back to your microwavable burritos in your mother’s basements.

So…let’s get to the real point here.  All you people who want to hate on cops…I wish I had the money to give all of you about $300 pocket money, a plane ticket to Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and a “Fuck Tha Police” T-shirt, just so I could see how long it took you to become a track tie on the Trans-Siberian Railroad.

Conclusion:

saigon police chief execution

The point is there are countries in this world where either the army is the police, or the police are allowed to act like an army at war.  The iconic photo of the Saigon police chief killing a spy during the Vietnam War is not what happens in America.  Cops in America are held to a standard, both through the law of the land (spell that as “the Constitution”) and societal expectation.  But when you declare war on them, Mr. Protestor, you would make all the things you complain about when it comes to “police abuse of power” perfectly legal if you didn’t live in a country like America.

Give all of this some serious consideration before you start making your declarations, Mr. Protestor.

6 Comment(s)
  • RSoxGuy
    April 1, 2015 at 4:30 pm

    Protesters should think??????? Such a crazy/racist idea.

  • Raised Fist
    April 1, 2015 at 11:07 am

    One more thing that Mr Dooshnozle warrior forgot: the cops get tax dollars to buy their guns and bullets, etc. Yup, YOU PAY for the stuff the will use to defeat you.

    Oh wait, there is like a negative infinity chance that this dunce pays taxes

  • WormtownorBust
    April 1, 2015 at 9:48 am

    The problem with most protestors is that it’s all about feels, not about logic.

  • Bob Lee
    April 1, 2015 at 9:09 am

    The “war” that “Mr. Protester” (I don’t even think he should be awarded even that title) was referring to was the most simplest. In the streets/hood when you’re “at war” with, that means on-sight beef. That means when we cross paths, it’s on. That sais, there is and will be no “war” between black people and the Boston Police just because this moron got caught up in the moment. Make no mistake, that’s all this was. It was to show the immediate people around him that he’s tough. I mean, just look at the way I’m talking to these cops! Its all a show. That person is an idiot. The cops came away from this with the best PR they’ve had in years and rightfully so. They were a class-act in the face of a class clown. Life will go on as it did. There is no war.

    • Bob Lee
      April 1, 2015 at 9:35 am

      I was going to add that in the same way “Mr. Protester” said what he said in the heat of the moment was reactionary is the same thing that Angelo did. He didn’t do any math in his head that had anything to do with Ferguson or being oppressed or otherwise. His thing was to get away from this situation as fast as possible and to avoid being arrested and sent to jail. He wasn’t “fighting the power” as I have actually seen some people suggest on some threads. I’ve seen people ask the question “But how do you know that it wasn’t his 5th time that day being stopped by the cops for no reason and he finally had enough?” People are actually saying this BS out loud and typing it into conversations. Imbeciles.

  • Patrick Fitzgerald
    April 1, 2015 at 9:00 am

    Hi,

    I was in Vietnam as an Advisor when this “incident” happened. No justificatiopn, but he had motive. Big deal. Cops don’t do this, the Military doesn’t and if and when they do are the tried. A Nation of Laws and Freedom.

Comment on this Post

RELATED POSTS
Insane Abuse Story Involving Dog The Bounty Hunter, MMA Psychopath “War Machine”, And Porn Star Christy Mack Is Better Than Any Reality TV Ever
Social Darwinism: Yet Another Example Of How Much Herd-Thinning We Need
The “Race Police” Are Running Out Of Stuff To “Bitch” About, So They Are Branching Out to Sexism