The Classic Liberal Blog

The behavior of the police in our "Land of the Free," is starting to look more and more like the Cold War Era Commie-Cops every single day.

Nevermind the crime ... here comes the Cracking-Down on Your Liberty!

Family: Cops Used Excessive Force at Baptism Party:

(emphasis added) On Tuesday night, a Manassas family said cops went too far. The 55-year-old homeowner is a church family counselor and a bible study teacher. He says he was hosting a party for his new godchild.

However, he and the pregnant mother of the baptized boys face serious charges. Relatives are charging police used excessive force just to quiet down the backyard party.

Family members say it was supposed to be a happy day to celebrate the baptism of the two little boys. Home video captures the party moments before police arrive following a noise complaint. You can hear children's laughter above the sound of music.

Edgar Rodriguez says the backyard celebration came to an abrupt halt. After some confusion, his 55-year-old father, Edgar Rodriguez, Sr. says he was asked for an ID and handed it over. Then, he was Tasered three times.

The elder Rodriguez explains how he pulls out his wallet. Interpreting for his father, Edgar says, "He took out his wallet. He had the license in his hand and gave his wallet to his wife. When he lifted up his hands with his license, he started feeling the electric shock in his back."

"All of a sudden he got Tasered in the back and then this side, and then officer in the front of him Tasered him from the front. My dad was not under arrest. We never heard anyone say you're under arrest," said Edgar Rodriguez, Jr.

The family's home video tape captures some moments as Rodriguez was Tasered, and then charged with public intoxication in his own backyard.

The pregnant mother of the baptized boys was Tasered, too. The family says the woman tried to help Rodriguez, who was on the ground. She was charged with assaulting a police officer.

"They Tasered her in the back. She didn't assault the officer. She was assaulted by officer," said Edgar, Jr. who was just steps away from his father.

The family calls it excessive force, and they say all of it happened in front of a yard full of children.

The party was hardly riotous, and Mr. Martinez was cooperative in producing his ID.  He received 3 taser shots (2 from the back) for doing so.  The cops followed-up this move, by tasering the mother of the baptized boys!

You see, um, she dared to help Mr. Martinez, as he laid on the ground.  Witness for yourself what happened.  Watch the following video.

Competing Visions of Law:

One of the most influential documents in the history of our law is (or should I say 'was') William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, published between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone's belief, was that the law should act as a “shield for the innocent,” and that the purpose of law (and government) is to protect innocent people and their property from predators.

It was Blackstone's vision that gave us our “innocent until proven guilty” point of view. As Blackstone declared:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer."

But there is another, far different vision of law and government, that competes with that of Blackstone.  It is the vision of British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the “father” of modern government.

Bentham argued against the idea of natural rights, and that the state must act as a mechanism by which the greatest number could achieve the greatest pleasure with the least amount of pain. In other words, Bentham's was a vision of unrestrained state power, led by those of "superior vision" to ordinary folks (who simply don't know better).

In Bentham's view, the law was not a “shield for the innocent,” but rather a set of rules designed to “push” people in certain directions via incentives which were both benign and harsh. Even wrongful convictions of innocents are considered acceptable, because "the Greater Good" is being served.

Where Blackstone believed that government should be restrained by natural law, providing a “shield” for the innocent, Bentham believed law was a shield against “we the people,” who, according to his view, constitute a threat to the state. And where Blackstone railed against the “rack” and other torture devices, Bentham considered torture a useful tool for the state, administered by those of “superior vision.”

America was founded on Blackstone's vision of liberty and freedom.  Today however, we're transforming into Bentham's vision of the unrestrained state.  Can anyone argue otherwise?  Really?