no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

George Donnelly is Provoking the State’s Agents Again

January 11th, 2010

Let me qualify what I’m about to say: everything the Warwick Township cops did to George Donnely was wrong. Everything.

Below the fold is simply my opinion as to what he did wrong in his latest encounter, and why I feel that way. I’m a fan of George & what he does for the liberty movement, and I mean no disrespect. I just think he handled the situation less-than-satisfactorily.

I securely and legally carried a pistol openly. I failed to answer the questions of a person who didn’t even identify himself as a cop. I told a cop that open carry was legal and that he did not have the authority by his own rules to detain me simply for open carrying. I asked a cop to identify himself. I refused to identify myself in a situation where even the cop’s own laws don’t require it. These are my offenses. For this I was harassed, assaulted, kidnapped and imprisoned – just for starters.

That’s the world we live in folks.

But Donnelly screwed up big time.

After the situation had resolved itself, he returned and escalated by asking for the cop’s business card. I’m all for holding people accountable, George, and I’m not a fan of lying down, either. But you need to learn how to pick your battles a little more wisely. It should be obvious to someone with your experiences (previous open-carry detention, etc.) and to anyone (like you) who follows the current events and all, and who has a fierce libertarian bent, that 99 cops out of 100 don’t give a damn about what “their” laws oblige or proscribe; whether the laws are supposed to afford you certain rights or privileges, whether the law is supposed to prohibit law enforcement from certain behaviors.

As right as Donnelly was under these circumstances, arguing with a cop who’s already demonstrated (whether by word or deed) his ignorance and/or incompetence is a losing battle, returning to argue with him after one of your buddies has cooled him off and you’re free to be on your way is about as stupid as a football bat.

I get it: they started it.

But sometimes (i.e., most of the time) we just need to walk away. Most importantly, do not go out of your way to escalate these situations. IMO, returning to ask for his business card was careless escalation. And it’s the principle that George is trying to defend by taking this jackboot to task. Predictably though, George ended up in a holding cell and it’s unlikely that the cop will ever face any consequences for his thuggery.

More care needs be exercised towards avoiding these sorts of incident altogether. I mean, the whole point of agorism is like the shadow economy & stuff, and avoiding the state as much as possible — if for no other reason that pure pragmatism.

We can not fight them on their turf. We can not combat injustice with the very same laws which enable and encourage injustice.

Comments

8 Comments

RSS
  • George Donnelly says on: January 11, 2010 at 4:17 pm

     

    To not find out who he was would have been cowardly and I would have rightly been condemned far and wide for my cowardice.

    I did not return to argue with him. I simply made a polite request.

    It’s a no win situation. I made it as positive as I could by comporting myself in as dignified, calm and honest fashion as I am able.

    Also he could have stopped me on my way out anyway, whether I said something or not. We don’t know.

    I’m not (principally) an agorist. I am a voluntaryist and as such the path to success, after self-improvement, is in convincing others to withdraw their support of and consent to government.

    I didn’t ask for this. I don’t open carry to provoke anyone anymore than I drive a car to provoke a ticket or an accident. Both are legal acts even under the state’s rules. If the state is a law-abiding institution why should I expect either one to result in these kinds of incidents?

    Take a good mental look at yourself. Are you living in alignment with your principles or are you shirking the duty out of fear of inconveniences like this? I am living in alignment and have no regrets.

  • David Z says on: January 11, 2010 at 4:44 pm

     

    To not find out who he was would have been cowardly and I would have rightly been condemned far and wide for my cowardice.

    By whom?

    I did not return to argue with him. I simply made a polite request.

    Yeah, I know & understand this. But you’re essentially trying to reason with an oragnutan wearing a badge. Or a “clown suit” if you will :)

    I didn’t ask for this. I don’t open carry to provoke anyone anymore than I drive a car to provoke a ticket or an accident.

    Perhaps I need to clarify. It’s not the open-carry which I think is provocative, what I find to be unnecessarily provocative is asking the jackboot for his business card.

    Are you living in alignment with your principles or are you shirking the duty out of fear of inconveniences like this?

    I haven’t found myself in any situations like this, yet. So I guess I can’t really answer that.

  • Neverfox says on: January 11, 2010 at 8:13 pm

     

    David,

    You beat me to it. This was the exact reaction I had when I read George’s post. There was no reason to take an action that, given the cop’s previous actions, was reasonably likely to provoke him. To make an analogy, say that you are open carrying and you see a group of cops looking at you suspiciously. Do you think it’s wise to go up to them and start telling them that they better not bother you? No because the rule with cops is say as little as possible ALWAYS and avoid them if at all possible. They are no different on the rationality scale than wild animals.

    Basically, George, it comes down to this: the first rule of self-defense is to avoid having to defend yourself. That is not cowardice. The unity of virtue requires the content of courage to be in sync with the content of prudence. Even though you carry a gun, you would be failing in your efforts to be prepared if you didn’t do everything in your power to avoid dark alleys. That doesn’t mean it’s your fault if and when you get attacked but it’s still a failure to do what is prudent and therefore, it’s not fully courageous.

    When the cop stopped harassing you, you should have gone about your business because of the fact that he’s irrational. You had already put him in his place and at that point it had returned to a neutral situation. You approaching him is no different than the example above of preemptively telling cops that you are within your rights. If I come across a cougar and it somehow walks right past me, I’m not going to go up to it and ask why. The situation was over and you should have walked quickly in the opposite direction, principles intact.

  • Don says on: January 12, 2010 at 4:09 pm

     

    If you got the ballz to carry it you better have the ballz to use it. Clearly Donnelly has no ballz.

    Lets take a look at the scorecard:
    Insult, check.
    Assault, check.
    Kidnap, check.
    Imprisonment, check.
    Gang anal rape, check.

    OK, the last one I made up but you see my point?
    Why is Donnelly toting a gun if he isn’t willing to use it to protect himself from flagrant thugs?

    When he answers this question to himself he will a better person for it. And I agree with Neverfox above, “The unity of virtue requires the content of courage to be in sync with the content of prudence.”, well said.

    My ol’ gray haired pappy told me long ago, “Son, look waaay ahead for trouble then steer yourself around it.”

    Lastly, Donnelly is now a marked man, he better leave the area, while he can. But I suspect he won’t, he likes his Warhol minutes.

  • George Donnelly says on: January 12, 2010 at 8:23 pm

     

    “There was no reason to take an action that, given the cop’s previous actions, was reasonably likely to provoke him.”

    Take this argument to its logical extreme and we get what we have today. People who are too “sensible” and “practical” to exercise their liberty.

    In fact, since we’ve shown that cops are provoked by open carry, by your reasoning I should stop open carrying too. But that would be self-destructive.

    Likewise, it would have been self-destructive to walk out of there without trying to hold him accountable. If nothing else, at a bare minimum, I would have regretted it.

    I understand where you guys are coming from, I suppose, but I disagree.

  • Don says on: January 12, 2010 at 10:31 pm

     

    So, by NOT carrying a gun openly and by NOT provoking known terrorists I am being self destructive?

    Having practiced those 2 things all of my life I’m wondering why I haven’t detonated yet?

    I have guns, lots of them, I’m an ex military demolition specialist, I’ve known extreme violence many times in my distant past so maybe that’s why I go way out of my way to avoid it.

    Or maybe I just understand the futility and danger of arguing with the state.

    They have all the power, all the way up to include F16 air strikes if necessary. That’s enough to convince me to leave em alone.

    Here’s how this thing will evolve. One of these days a jack boot will fuck with the wrong person. After the fact, that person will stalk that jack boot and then he, the jack boot, will be found, gutted like a pig, in a rural area somewhere and no one will know how it happened, except for one person. Then it will happen again. And again, and again. All across the country (legal) criminals will brought to task for their behavior. After awhile they will learn what they are up against, that every person they violate will potentially kill them.

    I heard the wild, wild west was not so wild afterall. In fact it was downright gentlemanly because to be otherwise meant a full personal deficit right on the spot, and that’s the way it should be.

  • Don says on: January 13, 2010 at 11:30 am

     

    Walking around without a gun is hardly self destructive.

    Agitating a known thug is self destructive, as all of us have seen numerous times.

    This time you were lucky, all you got was some time in a cell.

    Next time may very well be much different.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics