"War on drugs" poster, edited 1/9

This image changed a lot based on the feedback I received.



Verbose, but more clear than the shorter captions I considered.

 

Perfect.

 

or 3) Shooting Federal officers is A-OK, just make sure to have a rifle, so they die properly!

Perhaps not the best image to evoke.

 

I'm not quite sure I understand the DEA reference here

If the DEA does a no-knock at her residence, I think it would be in her interest not to have a firearm in her hands as she (and pretty much all of us) would not stand a chance in a shootout with a skilled entry team.

A home invader is a different matter however...

I love your work Oleg, but I must be taking the message the wrong way. This seems a bit extreme if the message is that of shooting federal agents. Not the image I would want as a gun owner.

 

Shooting honest citizens is A-OK, just make sure to have an entry team, so they die properly!

How is one better than the other? If a federal officer breaks into my home, he deserves to be shot, same as any other goblin. Make no mistake, without a proper warrant for my residence, it is a crime, no matter what the misguided citizens are told.

Sorry for the thread drift, there. And the beating of the horse, as well...

 

How would an innocent person know who just kicked the door in? I don't expect DEA or any other friends of the people at my home because I am law-abiding, so anyone doing a forcible entry of my home will be stopped to the best of my ability. Whether they die or not is immaterial, it's only important that they stop.

I am trying to suggest that the war on drugs and other civil liberties is going to lead to unnecessary deaths on both sides of the conflict, and to deaths of innocent bystanders also.

If a person can't tell who the intruders are, she'd be far better off with a magazine rifle capable of defeating armor than with a shotgun with buck. Having no weapon in hand is not an option because the expected opponent is the common gangbanger and not DEA. It is better to have an investigation into the reasonable/unreasonable use of force than to shoot the intruders ineffectively with buckshot and have them kill you in turn.

Some of my acquaintances kick doors for a living. If they kick in the wrong door and get killed by a lawful resident, I am not going to blame their victim for resisting what looked like a home invasion by perps. Since the SWAT cops are usually better trained, more numerous, better armed than their prey and have surprise on their side, they are more likely to win than to lose though. To their credit, they don't generally kill people on a whim (unlike gangbangers), and they try not to hit the wrong houses (we can discuss the ethics of raiding drug dealers in a different thread). All I am saying is that conducting urban warfare for whatever reason tends to produce casualties on all sides.

I work with people like these:



I don't want them dead, as I know them to be decent guys supportinve of my civil rights. I just think that SWAT should start figuring out the cost/benefit of sudden intrusions in cases not involving such necessities as hostage rescue. Getting team members killed is no worse than killing innocent people...and they should start thinking that way, not "us vs. them".

 

Oleg's original post/poster and subsequent post
+ 1

Have I ever mentioned how I like shotguns and slugs on this forum?
I mean I really like slugs

 

Yes, I see what you are saying, and I understand the risk involved with "urban warfare" but this image does not seem to convey all of what you said in your well-written reply.

The issue of "defending" yourself from law-enforcement is a touchy topic that can really be generalized in my opinion. I am not active in LE/DEA, and I don't really have any idea of their entry procedures; but I didn't think they raided homes with the intent to kill any and all occupants; whether they resist or not. I will read up some more on this issue, but the message on the pic does not sit well with me for some reason.

I don't want innocent homes raided any more than I want LEO shot. It's like saying "Keep a firearm ready, in case one of your relatives attack you in the night when they mistake you as a home invader." Both sides are innocent in these cases, and it's just a tragic case of misunderstanding that none of us want to be in.

I guess I will be alone in my viewpoint, but I am just offering a different one...

 

Two things come to mind, which I happen to believe in and practice best can.

-One keeps friends close - enemies closer.

-When meeting someone - how would you "stop an immediate threat".


<shiver> I was the target of a Rouge UC that decided the lure of easy money , Cocaine was worth giving up being Moral, adhering to Moral law, His oath to his Dept, and being a human being.

<shivers again> Folks whom were supposed to be kin, or friends did the same thing - put me in harm's way.

I do not appreciate being set up, a target, or being hurt. An enemy is an enemy - Period.

 

I'm going to be a bit reasonable about this I think. First, if an "Entry Team" of SWAT officers come into my house by mistake I hope I don't happen to be armed at the time, both for risks to them and to myself. Second, if I am I hope I have the sense to drop both my weapon and my body to keep those guys happy. Because...third, I'm going to end up kind of dead if I don't. I strongly suspect most of the folks on those hypothetical entry teams are just like the people Oleg works with. If they have raided my house it is by mistake since I don't have any illegal drugs around. I'd rather be accepting their apologies for the mistake than getting buried while my surviving family members sue the governmental "owners" of the hypothetical entry team.

That being said, if they start using these entry teams to begin the confiscation of citizen firearms...I'm likely to keep myself armed with a rifle as a welcome wagon, but that's another subject...right?

P.S. Oleg, I always enjoy your posters and have visited your site often. Keep up the great work.

 

I am pretty sure we have DEA employees here. Any comments from them?

 

phoglund,

If you have no reason to expect the DEA will raid you, being a good law-abiding person, why will you assume those masked men crashing through your door are actually DEA?

If you do, can you afford to be wrong? Can your family?

It doesn't take much to get a blue jump suit, a ski mask and yell "police" in the middle of the night. Doesn't make a door-crasher a cop.

 

The answer to the question in the picture is that she has zero chance of stopping them and as such this does not advocate defending yourself against no-knocks (rightly or wrongly) in my opinion.

Problem is not everyone knows she has no chance. Perhaps you could show her and a SWAT team on the poster to help them reach the right conclusion?

 

Maybe an inset of a couple typical arrestee (or pre-stopped) home invaders and then a stacked entry team for contrast.

 

Mistakes or Confidence not new...

One ploy used around here - again. Is to simply watch for elderly at grocery stores, drug stores, banks. Often just wait to see whom is parked in handicapped. Also the expectant mother parking.

Follow home. Any idiot can go to Thrift store and buy a brownish uniform, or any number of pants, shirts to appear to be delivery or utility person.

Folks getting robbed. This is not rocket science and not a new thing.

Pretending to be LEO. Hey, get a blue light, follow some good looking lady from the grocery store, secluded road, hit the blues and you too can be a blue light rapist. We and other areas had to change not only how unmarked cars were used [marked in a way] and ladies especially were educated.

I mean folks were NOT pulling over for being in fear. That had to be addressed.

Some of this is not original, just re-surfaces or makes a comeback.

A long time ago I got a phone call from the alarm company, an alarm was going off. In the wee hours off I go and arrive. There is NO alarm going off. None of what is supposed to happen or usually took place did.
I was followed and then 2 cars gave chase. I was doing 125 mph down a wide street and literally slid into the police station parking lot standing on the horn.

One seasoned officer, was way back there with lights on... I mean I was clocked doing this in a 40mph zone at 2:30 am- he caught up and about the time my butt was about to get yelled at. An officer who ran out stopped him and explained - an APB for the cars chasing me was issued.

I know how they were not found...btw.

Thank goodness some folks were on duty that knew me...of course back then nobody cared I was carrying concealed. Granted nobody addressed this until I had been the station for a bit. I stayed the night in a detectives office and slept there...or tried to.

I never ever left my abode without calling the alarm company again,and I had to hear a certain password. One I changed often and other arrangements.

I have been pulled over and why? My vehicle matched description of one used in a robbery or somesuch.

More than once,and out of state. The worst, when an LEO had been shot. I mean when the units converge, you stop, you get out and hug the ground, you get a gun removed off body and that 870 muzzle is at the nape of your neck, you do not breathe wrong. you get slammed into a squad car and taken in.

Finally it gets straightened out. One never forgets the feel of a 870 muzzle on nape of neck and it is being racked - never.

One never knows. Prepare oneself for whatever.

The scariest thing a LEO does, to me, is pull someone over. I was riding along...I stayed put, and it made me uncomfortable.

I prefer to not do Us vs Them. I mean just who is Us and who is them? Most folks do the LEO and civilians.

You got Moral and the UnMoral. I mean one cannot tell always from the Roster.

I've been taken for something I was not. So has persons whom wore a uniform.

That raccoon that gets into trash at 3am may be cute and cudly - might be rabid. Slugs work.

Oleg - IMO - is simply stating what we all state on THR. Tools for task, biggest one being the brain.

 

Keep a rifle! Kill a cop!

I guess that I have a few questions.

It seems fairly clear that a person who is attacked has the right to defend him/herself. There aren't too many people who'll argue with this, no matter their political orientation.

HOWEVER, this is a poster that is advocating rifles for self-defense because of the risk of LE busting down the wrong door.

You see what I'm getting at?
Many (most?) people will be much more wary about defending themselves against law enforcement officers, and they're not going to feel comfortable with the suggestion that they should keep a rifle on hand for just such an occasion.
I've asked myself the question of how to defend against LE if necessary.
It's a legitimate question, keeping in mind that the risk is very very very low.
However, what reason is there for making an image that seems to advocate shooting federal officers?

HOWEVER, you seem to be making posters that are intended to advance the RKBA cause.
In that light, I want to know: exactly what purpose does this poster serve?
If anyone is truly worried about fighting the DEA, they probably don't need this. If someone is a bit more...moderate...than I suspect a poster like this will make them extremely uncomfortable about who they are associating with.

Hell, I feel pretty damn uncomfortable with this poster, and I'm a very strong supporter of the RKBA, 2nd Amendment, etc.

If you want to protest the drug war, fine, just make it clear what you're protesting.

If you want to support the gun-rights cause, I could probably think of some better ways to do it.

 

I need to figure out anti-WOD messages from scratch. This was an unplanned foray into that territory. The audience for these posters would be people who already support RKBA. Suggestions are welcome.

 

If I posted anything close to this it would be shut down in a nano second.

Hypothetically shooting cops? Isn't this the high road?

 

Carebear,

Although you have a point I suspect the chance a bunch of home invasion losers will take the time and trouble to dress up like a SWAT entry team is probably less than a SWAT entry team hitting my house by mistake. The simple truth is a professional entry team is very unlikely to lose a confrontation with any of us if they do their job right. Although I have loaded firearms in my house and carry concealed when I leave I really don't perceive the threat level to be such that I am willing to accept the intrinsic cost of a level of armed vigilence that would allow me a reasonable chance of defeating a professional entry team raiding my house. It's important in my view to balance preparedness against the reasonable likelyhood of the event prepared for. I go armed because I think a situation may occur for which a firearm might help me protect myself. I don't walk around my house dressed for CQB because It's too uncomfortable in relation to the likely risk I'll need all that gear.

 

It does happen. In fact it did not long ago close to where I live. Local police busted in the wrong house one night and the home's resident shot and killed one officer. Resident was cleared and no charges were pressed.

 

How about both?

I suggest both.

And, ironically, I'm former State Bureau of Narcotics... It's hard to be a narc when you favour decriminalization. ;-) That prolly explains the "former" bit. heh

k

 

Unfortunate for all involved. I'd not like to live with that on my concience...cleared legally and morally or not.

 

You might be suprised...

You might be suprised. It happens more often than makes the news. But you are right. Interestingly, at least in my state, the numbers are about equal those shot (and actually hit) by criminals and those shot by accidental "friendly fire." In other words, both are relatively rare.

 

The issue here boils down to the rights of citizens in their homes versus the contrived reasoning to violate them and the antics of the state.

I support the castle doctrine.

There can be no peacetime moral or legal justification for the state to place the citizen in the position of "I must prostrate myself to any who burst into my home wearing black suits and masks shouting the magic words". Or "I must wait and see whether they really are goods guys or badguys before I shoot".

When the state tries to convince citizens that it is in their best interests to have things this way; the state definately does not have the citizens best interests at heart, and their motives lie elsewhere.
------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

I think this makes the same statement as " X amount of innocent people are killed every year in high speed police pursuits of individuals with misdemeanors"

It is a statement about the no knock searches and the frequency of mistakes.

Which to me equals "of the last 100 people put to death in prison only 7 were innocent."

The caption doesn't say "Arm yourself to kill the Feds when they come".

CT