NO RIGHT TO BE LEFT THE FUCK ALONE IN THE FREE RANGE PRISON. From [HERE] Authorities in a Delaware town released body camera footage that showed multiple cops punch a Black woman several times in the head during her arrest and use her locs to force her to the ground.

The arrest happened on June 29 in Bear, Delaware. 

Cell phone video that circulated on social media captured part of the arrest when the cops were seen aggressively restraining the woman and punching her after she was wrestled to the ground.

The video spurred controversy online, prompting New Castle County authorities to release footage from the body cameras of all the officers involved in the arrest in an effort to shed more light on the incident. [MORE]

The gullible Black woman in the video probably really believed she could have an arms length conversation with the white cop, who she apparently regarded as her public servant. Clearly, she spoke to him like she believed she had a meaningful opportunity to secure a different outcome other than going to jail. She also believed she had Constitutional rights and that such rights are enforceable by her on the street.

Yet said legal truths had no actual existence in reality. If another person such as a police officer, is uncontrollable by you, unaccountable to you, can’t be hired or fired by you, has irresponsible power over you and provides a compulsory “service,” then he is actually your Master. ‘We are not the government. And the government does not serve us.’ The rebel Larken Rose explained, “To imagine that a ruler could ever be the servant of those over whom he rules is patently absurd.” Lysander Spooner explained,

“It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner.”

In reality, the Black woman’s only options were to comply with authority or go to jail or die.

Additionally, in regard to her so-called 4th Amendment rights - where were they? Apparently, they only exist when a higher authority such as a police chief, judge or prosecutor says so. Brazen cops so frequently abuse their power that no Black shopper, pedestrian, motorist, juvenile, adult or Black professional of any kind—could make a compelling argument that so-called constitutional rights afford any real protection from cops. The back and forth between the cop and the Black woman is merely a pretense of civility by a barbarian. The cop preferred consensual compliance to forced compliance. Such a preference is to maintain the illusion of freedom where there is none. If the Black woman goes along with it (obeys), it may be better for her mind but she never had a choice in the matter. She probably disagrees, but that’s mind control (the purpose of government). Government does not rest on our voluntary consent, it is a system anchored in violence. As explained by FUNKTIONARY, “Government” is simply, unequivocally, and always initiation of force or coercion and nothing else. Citizens can either obey authority or go to jail. ‘The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain your freedom by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.’ [MORE] Government and it’s “services” are not voluntary but mandatory and individuals cannot opt out or reject government services or choose to live without government – rather, we are born into this involuntary arrangement. [MORE]

FUNKTIONARY explains,

“rights” – useful fictions declared in order to make agents of another type of fiction (“government”) have to play along in their deadly theatrical (tragicomedy) game. 2) mere fictions, the contemplation of which leads only to a progressive social, personal, racial and jurisprudential separation from reality. Discussion and debates about “rights” merely evades the FAQ, i.e., the frequently avoided question of who is to enforce any “right” and who will benefit from the pretense. “Rights” are separated into two categories—those flowing from “negative liberties” and those flowing from “positive liberties.” In law, rights are remedies and if a person is without a remedy (as is with citizens of the United States) he is without a right, and only a ‘thing’ is without rights. (See: Negative Liberties, Positive Liberties, Bill of Rights, Liberty, Freedom, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Ma’at & Justice)

rights – fantasmatic or fictitious objects having no reality in actuality by those imagining as an identity being in possession of them. Rights are cultural gratuities perceived through various fantasy frames, recognized, and sometimes even created, by man’s system of law to provide a modicum or pretense of civility under a system whereby their very undermining and violation is vouchsafed. Rights are merely rites unless you know how to assert and defend them in order to enjoy them. 2) things people are free to do whether they are able to or not. 3) conditions of existence required by hue-man’s nature for their potential survival (primarily against the cartoon that kills, i.e., the wholly unconscionable entity called the “State”). It is a mistaken notion that rights are enjoyed by one at the expense of the many—that is the realm of privilege. Enjoyment of rights in a neo-imperialistic world controlled by Yurugu through the Greater System (Symbolic Order), paradoxically, entails not only a recognition of their inevitability but, equally, their impossibility. How can we be endowed with rights, or even know what rights are when they are based on binary considerations? Rights, as ontological ephemera, cannot be universally observed, recognized, realized or enforced—and paradoxically, act also as its own eternal source for its assertion and vessel for its fulfillment in our imaginary enjoyment of them. [MORE]