Dear Ernie [Attn.: Powell Gammill]:

I am appealing to your sense of "fairness" in the practice of journalism, to publish in the front page this "other side of the coin". I am appealing to your sense of "fairness" because your online publication is predominantly a website of anti-Statism, and starting from you the owner, presenting this "other side of the coin" could easily be consider an alien "intruder". But if this is published in the front page of FP.com, you can be a hero for saving lives that would have otherwise perished under this abomination called "police brutality" !

To being with, I’d like to let you know that I am following up the discussions of this matter with keen interest. Yesterday May 15, 2011, my comment was printed in Freedom Forum under Larken Rose’s published opinion – "Indiana: Full Frontal Fascism" that appeared in this website on 05-13-2011. For the safety of American citizens, I am vehemently opposed to what Larken wrote.

I write columns and editorials published in several print and online publications. I am doing this journalist’s civic duty of exposing this underhanded deception that citizens must resist police arrest or forcible entry without warrants. It is as dangerous as pushing someone into the rail in front of the speeding locomotive.

Citizens deceived by this incitement to rebellion by resisting police arrest or forcible entry at their own peril must understand that they are being duped to commit violence and anarchy which is the goal of anarchists in sowing the seeds of chaos to prove their philosophical claim or ideological thesis that Statism is inimical to human existence. Their intense hatred of the existence of the State and Government is so controlling that they would do anything they can to disrupt peace and order at any cost.

The full view of my opposition to calling the Indiana court ruling "frontal fascism" – by the way for author Larken to call it "fascism" was unwarranted because his explanation and justification smacks of ignorance, hoodlumism and thuggery -- must reach the American public for the safety of the citizens. With this hate-article written by Larken, Anarchists shouldn’t succeed in throwing any of us under the bus.

It doesn’t really matter whether police arrest or forcible entry is with or without a warrant so long as it is done in the performance of police duty to stop a crime or to prevent a crime about to be committed. Any lawyer, who passed the Bar, knows this like they do the back of their palm.

Larken Rose and his kind should know what resisting police arrest or resisting police forcible entry means, and why IT IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY TO RESIST. The Indiana court explained what it means, but author Larken has a twisted understanding of what the ruling was all about. I want this critical enlightenment for all FP.com readers to know and comprehend so that they may not cry their lungs out shouting "police brutality" that’s neither called for nor necessary. It is unnecessary especially when the person decides to resort to violence – which is what Larken and his kind want -- in resisting police arrest or forcible entry.

The public needs to know, and I must tell this to every citizen if I could, what this court ruling means: "... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy" -- simply means that it is against public policy for anyone TO RESIST WHILE POLICE ARREST OR FORCIBLE ENTRY IS IN PROGRESS – regardless of whether such arrest or entry is legal or not. What is being prevented as a matter of public policy is the violence, death or injury that would take place if police officers -- described in law as "persons in authority" – are obstructed or prevented from the performance of their duty.

Conducting arrest or forcible entry is a duty of police officers. During arrest or forcible entry, the person being arrested or anyone in the house or building being entered into cannot stop the arrest or entry by invoking his/her constitutional right. The lawyer if present while this is in progress has no right either to intervene or stop the arrest or forcible entry. Anyone violently intervening in this kind of police work, and any person using force or violence in resisting arrest or entry is liable to catch a bullet fired from a police handgun or bullets fired from high-powered weaponry, and could end up in the morgue. "Do you understand now why such resistance is against public policy?" Before I retired from the practice of law, this is the question I often asked my clients to make sure that they understand this legal inhibition very well because if they do, it will protect them from harm.

The Indiana report says that "Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence." Bodensteiner said that because he is a professor of law and no lawyer worth his salt would ever miss knowing that the person being arrested by the police or agents of the law or the owner or resident/s of the house or building being entered into by the police or agents of the law IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTY have no right to resist otherwise they would either get killed or injured.

Forget about those court jesters, I mean Justices dissenters – Justice Robert Rucker and Justice Brent Dickson – who said that the majority decision "runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment". They are "politicians" donning the bench’s black robe. As judges, they knew that in this majority decision what they are differing about is bullcrap but the kick got their name in the banner story of The Northwest Indiana Times!

Only those with severe neurosis against the State who are ignorant of this legal procedure which is called in different courses or in many ways or curricula in the study of law [i.e. Remedial Law, Procedural Law, etc.] would ostracize and ridicule this court ruling, and as opportunist propagandists, would whip public sentiments against the State represented by the existing justice system or the whole System itself, as the likes of Larken Rose are prone to crucify with such sadistic abandon and vicious indulgence.

Here is the problem of Larken and his likes in their propensity to deceive the less sophisticated population of the American public: Police officers and thugs are NOT THE SAME. Unfortunately, in Larken’s enraged mind, they are one and the same. Thus in Larken’s advocacy of violence in resisting police arrest or forcible entry, citizens must fight or shoot or kill police officers when conducting an arrest or blast them with a shotgun when entering their home premises, just as what they should do against thugs or hoodlums in self-defense. Show no mercy against the agents of the law. After all, they are agents of the hated State that could never be right in whatever they do. And that’s where the slaughter of public credulity takes place.

And here is the teaching and learning process from the re-education camp where Larken and his kind belong if there is to be any remaining hope of redemption at all: The policemen or "persons in authority" are required under the Constitution to protect the citizenry against any of the violator’s infraction of law or wrongdoing. They have a duty to do what they are required to do. True, there can always be a police apple or two inside the barrel. But the citizens must know where their fight against what is perceived as "police brutality" is – and that is in the court of law. We are not living in the jungle anymore as Larken and his kind fantasize we are.

It is not even debatable anymore the fact that our justice system is flawed. But to be credible, for a layman in rage like Larken to attempt to be too legalese in lambasting those defects – real or imagine – one must at least be a lawyer who knows the rough edges as well as the refinements of law, and academically educated enough to know the legal and constitutional rights of the individual, the rights of those who challenge the law, especially police officers while engaged in the performance of their duty. Otherwise what we read here is just but a spate of ignorance … nothing more than just pure sadistic hatred of the System, especially when exhibited by those who declared themselves as "revolutionary Libertarians" whose call to arms has become a favorite pastime – inciting a violent revolution which falling on deaf ears directly goes to the trashcan.

Larken should do something to attract the attention of peace officers in any of the security department of the State he hates more than he does his mother-in-law. Then he will have the opportunity to resist arrest and find out for himself what the cost is or what’s going to happen to him, instead of indulging on a useless blah-blah to mislead Americans to do it for themselves under this false cry for liberty and freedom!

Opposite to Larken’s and his look-a-likes’ mean-spirited deception of the American public against the State and peace officers of the law, take this advice from me: Anyone who feels "victimized" by false arrest or the so-called police "unlawful" entry, has a remedy in the court of law. In our System, rascals hardly get away. Never take the law into your hand and end up in the hospital or in the morgue.

That’s not what the fight for liberty and freedom means! Absolutely not !

This is published for the needed critical information of the American public.

Bakadude