How Are The Police Different From Armed Robbers?
Well, because the law stands behind them as they make off with your cash. (And whoopsy, sorry if they kill you when they come to arrest you in your home on suspicion of on suspicion of gambling in sports or something.)
At The Federalist, Daniel Payne writes about a gambling raid by the cops in Virginia, in which they made off with $200K in cash.
I'm of the mind that government should be small and be there as a protective force for those who'd violate our life, liberty, or property.
Can anyone tell me how a poker game disturbs anyone?
The story from Payne:
To the casual observer it appears that Virginia is run by violent psychopaths. That's the takeaway from the recent report of an anti-poker SWAT team raid in Fairfax County, in which eight assault rifle-sporting police officers moved against ten card-playing civilians. The police possibly seized more than $200,000 from the game, of which 40 percent they eventually kept.There was no indication that any of the players was armed. As a matter of fact, it appears that a gambler is more likely to be shot without provocation by the Fairfax Police than the other way around. The heavy firepower at the Fairfax raid was apparently motivated by the fact that "at times, illegal weapons are present" at such poker games, and that "Asian gangs" have allegedly targeted such events in the past. This is, then, a novel approach to law enforcement: as a matter of policy, Fairfax police now attempt to rob and steal from people before street gangs get around to doing it.
It is a mystery why we put up with this obscene police behavior. Gambling itself is not illegal in Virginia; it is simply controlled by the state. So the Fairfax police department did not bust these hapless poker players with guns drawn for doing something truly immoral and fully outlawed, merely for doing something in a way not approved by the state legislature. Were gambling actually forbidden in Virginia, then a crackdown could at least be understood, if not condoned in so paramilitary a fashion. Yet Virginia's stance on the matter is not to treat gambling as malum in se, but rather as an instrumentum regni: our government prefers to funnel gambling money into its own coffers for its own ends, outlaw the same thing when it's done outside of the state's jurisdiction, and then steal the money of the poor fellows who happen to get caught.
From the Tom Jackman WaPo link (on "raid") above:
But Virginia law defines "illegal gambling" as any wager of money made for a chance to win a prize or stake based on any contest "the outcome of which is uncertain or a matter of chance." Virginia law does allow private "games of chance" if there is "no operator" involved, but anyone who operates a game with "gross revenue of $2,000 or more in any single day" is in violation. The player said the host of the Great Falls game only took a cut of the money to pay the dealers and player assistants.The regular player said the police told him, "The reason we're here is there are Asian gangs targeting these games," and it's certainly true that some private gambling events in Fairfax County have been robbed by nefarious elements. The player said he wanted to respond, "So you robbed us first," but he did not.
..."It's crazy," said the regular, looking back on the night of the raid. "They had this 'shock and awe' with all of these guys, with their rifles up and wearing ski masks." He noted that the Justice Department recently revamped its guidelines for civil forfeiture cases, following reports by The Post about abuses of the seizure process by police around the country, including Fairfax. But in Virginia, the seizure law remains the same, and agencies may keep what they seize, after going through a court process.
Okay, the game's outside the law. It is not under government regulation. Dollars are not being funneled to government. If I don't pay my taxes, the IRS will come after me -- but presumably (well, usually), in a letter, not with the SWAT team.
This case is really about the police ability to profit from robbing you -- asset forfeiture, as it's euphemistically called.
Yes, your government now is in the business of protecting you from using the money you've earned in the fashion you want -- in a game of chance with other consenting adults.
via @instapundit
I hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure the IRS has a SWAT team or two. I mean, DoEducation kicked in a man's door at 6am to look for his estranged wife who wasn't home.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/08/dept-of-education-swat-team-up
I R A Darth Aggie at February 4, 2015 8:36 AM
I've read over the past two years or so that the public perception of police in general is swinging back to the way it was during the Depression. In that era, police and criminals were regarded not as moral opposites, but merely as rival gangs. The Keystone Kops evolved as a satire, portraying the police as ineffective bumblers, because that gave everyone a chance to laugh at them -- the morals of the day were such that it will still impermissible to protray police as blatantly corrupt, so portraying them as incompetent was the next best thing. The ordinary citizen sought to attract as little attention from either one as possible, because in either case, being noticed was likely to be followed by shakedowns and threats.
As in the case of the Depression, this is occurring in an era when the government is "cracking down", sometimes with extreme force, on activites that most people regard as harmless. As in the 1930s, today's ruling elite clearly sees themselves in a paternal role regarding the rest of society. They perceive their job as that of "raising" the rest of the citizenry, preventing them from enagaging in a wide variety of activities, for their own good.
Cousin Dave at February 5, 2015 10:05 AM
Leave a comment