PA reaver killed after refusing to surrender for the crime of making online threats against police.

It's just getting more and more ugly in the US IMO and the latest evidence is this story in which a Pennsylvania man made online threats against the police and then reportedly rammed a cop car when cops tried to arrest him for it (making online threats is illegal!).  If what the police have reported is true, and such reports are always a question for me before actual evidence like dash cam video is presented, the guy basically rammed one of the police vehicles with his own thus pretty much begging to be killed on the spot.  Again, show us the dash cam before anyone should believe anything the police have to say because they have, through their own corrupt acts, lost the right to be believed without question by society.  As far as I am concerned the police have lost all trust of the people so they need to justify their actions going forward. 

Having said that, I suspect that this guy was dangerous and that he was likely a reaver based on his (again reported only so far) Facebook rants and threats against police.  If you are still unfamiliar with the concept of a reaver, it is part of the Firefly TV series / Serenity movie lore.  The central authorities tried to calm (AKA control) a whole planet of people using chemical social engineering techniques.   The main culprit was a substance known as G23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate or "Pax" for short which was purposely emitted into the planet's atmosphere by the corrupt central government.  Eventually, 1/10th of 1% had the opposite reaction to the Pax.  They basically went crazy and began killing anything that moved.  Credit is Pax.  This opposite reaction of the reavers is one of the so called "unintended consequences" (a term often used by Austrian school economists) of using Pax (aka credit) to control social mood.

Why did this PA man suddenly begin blindly hating the police to the degree that his own life no longer mattered?  This is not rational!  It would be one thing if they killed his little brother or mom or dad or maybe even his dog (police like to kill people's pet dogs for some reason - its a Google-able epidemic in the USA right now), etc. but we get no indication of this so far in this case.  All we get is that some guy went crazy for no apparent reason. 

Well, since I predicted this day would arrive and since I wrote about the cause many times, none of this surprises me.  There is always a certain percentage of people who just cannot have someone else meddling in their lives to a greater degree each year.  Each time a new edict and order and new restriction is issued against the people, the reavers-to-be let it eat into their brains like some kind of worm and over time it drives them crazy.  Their brains begin "squirming like a toad" in the words of Jim Morrison.  Some people simply will not put up with "the man" symbolically pushing its finger into their chests repeatedly while repeating their mantra of "zero tolerance, zero tolerance" and "if you see something say something" and all the other Nazi propaganda coming from the central government these days.  For people with a certain brain structure, these things are like small cuts or cigarette burns to their psyches.  A few can be brushed off and let go but when it becomes a constant, daily reminder that the individual is shit and the police state is God then you are simply going to get some people who will not worship and they will deeply resent, in an almost religious manner, the intervention of the police state into their lives.  For some people it is a form of psychological torture which eventually drives them insane.

Unfortunately for the police, like in Serenity, reavers might be crazy but they are not stupid.  In the series/movie they even self-organize into gangs.  I suspect that similar things are happening right now which is why I want to educate the police on what they are up against so that they can, very quickly if they have any intelligence at all, reconsider their current iron-fisted militarized policY eNFORCEMENT strategy.  The reavers-to-be just got the obvious message: don't advertize on FB your intentions.  Police should expect such stupid self-outing of reaver status to occur less and less over time while more and more organized police take-downs begin to appear.  I really hope I am wrong about this because the whole thing - on both sides of the equation - is messed up big time.  But unless the police do a concerted, public and obvious toning down of their excesses then domestic terrorism will be on the rise going forward and much of it will be directed at the police.  This will benefit nobody!  What needs to happen in order to de-escalate this situation are things like the following:

• Stop presenting the public with the militarized zero tolerance game.  It's not working.  People are not cowering in fear from you, at least not the ones that you hoped would cower.  You are creating reavers!!  Also, you are losing support from women who are now starting to believe that you are more of a danger than a benefit.
• Enough of the Nazi SWAT uniforms for everyone already!  Tone it down 5 notches!  Also, return all police cars to the visible black and white or blue and white standard.  We do not want you to blend into the population.  We want a visible deterrent to crime and we want people to be able to readily detect any police in the area.
• Enough of the no knock warrants.  Finding a few ounces of drugs is simply not worth the loss of public trust this vile tactic is creating.  Remember: you cannot hide behind the whole "we acted within the law" line.  Man can create endless laws and today pretty much everyone is a felon for one thing or another.  Thus is the current nature of our police state whose mantra is "zero tolerance".
• Ditch the MRAPs.  Stop the passive-aggressive threat game.  Calling an MRAP a "search and rescue" vehicle fools nobody and only creates more reavers who will not live in your little paramilitary head game paradise.  In the long run it is a game you cannot win.
• Figure out how to return to the 1950s beat cop image where people actually saw the police as helpful servants.
• Police that turn their back on the mayor, who is the elected representative of the people,  should be fired on the spot.  We cannot have this kind of rogue element within our police force.  It sends the message that cops don't want to be reined in and that they don't see the mayor as being in their chain of command.  It sends the message that they think they are above the need to care about public sentiment.
• Have a professional outside review done of each incident involving police violence upon a member of society.  This is not served by having peers or police mgt do the investigating.  It must be an outside, civilian based nonpartisan effort to get to the truth.  Transparency must be 100%.  Trust in the people!  If a bad guy needed killing, they will side with you but only if they feel like they are getting the full truth.  Yes, some crazy bad guys do need killing!
• There must be some kind of higher authority responsible for looking into police abuses so that the fox cannot be left to guard their own hen house as was initially done in this striking case.  Note: this is a good example of how the G23 pax side effects of empowering the police state actually works to create reavers.  That kind of disturbing video can create negative emotions in even the best of men and the woman victim will be emotionally scarred for life.
• In general, do the right thing because it is the best path for society, and avoid doing harmful things to the public just because you think you can get away with it under the current law.  In other words, get your minds right.  We the people are collectively your boss.  If you don't like it, get another job.

I want to close with a post on the differences between domestic terrorism, survivalism and patriotism because, while I believe the line is well defined, the police have been attempting to blur it such that every noncompliance with zero tolerance is domestic terrorism.  In general, the people are free and they have rights.  Anyone who is simply exercising their natural and constitutionally defined rights is not a terrorist. 

For example, you have the right not to be killed by police for nonviolent crimes.  You also have the right if not civic duty to stop police from hurting or killing people indiscriminately.  And you always have the right to self defense regardless of whether the bad guy is wearing a badge or not.   If the police roll up into my home without a warrant then they will be fools and idiots not to expect me to defend myself from them.  As can be seen in the disturbing video of the cop and the woman in the court room, the people can no longer reasonably expect any and all police activity to be legal or moral.  Many police are brazen in their corruption.  Good cops need not feel threatened by me.  Just show me the legal warrant, guys, and I will stand down.  Sorry, your word isn't good enough anymore and that fault is on you.

Clearly, the heinous murder by the crazy guy of two beat cops as they sat in their car was not patriotism or survivalism.  It was domestic terrorism; a simple revenge killing by a lost soul who thought he had nothing to lose by doing it.  While understandable in nature and yes, predictable within the context of the state-made reaver, it was inexcusable, reprehensible, unforgivable and cowardly in nature.  This is not patriotism or survivalism.

However, lets go to a grey area.  Lets say that, while NYC police were carelessly murdering Eric Garner on the street, his children arrived on scene to see and hear Eric gasping for breath and begging police to let him breathe.  Let's say the kids had the reasonable expectation that their father would die from this treatment.  Had they produced guns, pointed them at the cops and told them to stand down or face death then I would not call it terrorism even if it resulted in gun play and death of cops.  I would call it survivalism.  What good is it to comply with corrupt zero tolerance laws, allow the police to kill your family so that maybe they can be sorry later on (or maybe not)?  This is not to say that citizen guns should have been used to release Garner from police custody.  The cops had the right to arrest him.  But the citizens had the right to stop them from killing him for it.  Sadly, police would have turned such an incident into a blood bath even if no citizen shots had been fired.  Then they would have claimed that no matter what they were engaged in that nobody ever has a right to point a gun at them.  This is where I will always disagree with cops.  Their police status in no way reduces an individual's right to survival and it it is fucked up of them to think otherwise.  Police are not God after all. 

Everyone who is not hurting someone else has the right to physical safety and no matter who the bad guy is.  In the Garner case the real criminals were the murderous police officers who choked and otherwise asphyxiated Garner to death and then didn't even bother to do CPR once they determined that they had stopped his breathing.  Note to the cops: only a coward or a fool will sit there and watch you murder his family simply because you claim the legal right to do so.  Survivalism extends to ensuring that family members survive too.

Patriotism is generally a nonviolent act and it must not turn violent until after the state disposes of the rule of law and devolves into a criminal free for all for the authorities. For example, patriots will resist, by all means available, the mass collection of constitutionally owned weapons.  Allowing the fox to disarm the chickens is an act of abject stupidity and attempting to do so is a declaration of war against anyone who knows anything about history. 

Prior to state-dissolution of natural and constitutional rights, Patriots will do every nonviolent thing within their means to prevent the situation from going past the point of no return so that things don't have to get violent.  I consider these blog posts such an effort.  Martin Luther King was a patriot and was completely right: "Nonviolence, nonviolence".  Patriots must work within the system as long as the system stands but they must also prepare for the possibility that the state will dissolve the social contract and collapse into tyranny. 

We are still a long, long way from that!  In fact, recent public swings back toward conservatism have been very uplifting and should be sending a positive message to the many people who already incorrectly believe that we are beyond the turning point.  I'm not saying that rampant tyranny won't eventually happen but I see a lot of positive moves happening across the board which tell me that the state has not concluded yet that it doesn't need the consent of the people in order to govern.  This is in fact the beginning of tyranny: when the state thinks it has the right to govern without popular consent. In fact, just the opposite seems to be playing out: the state is beginning to show fear that it will get kicked out.  When the government is fearful the people should rest easier.