Bè, è difficile non provare simpatia per il tizio. “Ho provato di tutto – scosse elettriche, colpi, lacrimogeni – e ancora alla gente non piaccio!”

Ironie a parte, i commenti che i lettori hanno scritto sotto l’articolo che parla del caso del comandante Nestel danno ancora più spazio alla costernazione:

“Questi poliziotti sono criminali, non dovrebbero sorprendersi se la gente non sta dalla loro parte.”

“In questo video vedo solo violenza tra bande rivali.”

I poliziotti di Philadelphia, almeno fin dai tempi del sindaco Frank Rizzo, sono noti per la loro brutalità e corruzione, anche rispetto ad altre grandi città. Alla fine degli anni novanta dieci agenti furono scoperti a fabbricare prove per ricattare gli spacciatori. Ovviamente, non potevano mantenere questo primato per sempre. Da allora, grazie alla guerra alla droga e alla continua militarizzazione della cultura poliziesca, gli altri dipartimenti hanno ridotto significativamente il gap corruttivo.

Ad ogni modo, Nestel dovrebbe ringraziare il cielo se il suo “poliziotto a terra” non ha ricevuto lo stesso genere di “servizio e protezione” che i suoi subordinati forniscono ogni giorno agli abitanti di Philadelphia. Diversamente, l’agente sarebbe stato circondato da sei passanti, preso a calci sulle costole, la testa e i reni, riempito di manganellate a tutta forza, spruzzato a bruciapelo sugli occhi con lo spray al peperoncino, e stordito con dozzine di scariche elettriche; e per tutto il tempo gli avrebbero urlato “Non opporre resistenza! Non opporre resistenza!” sbattendogli la faccia sul cemento. E gli avrebbero anche sparato il cane. E minacciato di pestare chiunque avesse filmato l’incidente.

In caso di sopravvivenza (molti non arrivano a tanto) i caritatevoli passanti gli avrebbero slogato le spalle per ammanettarlo, avrebbero picchiato la sua testa contro l’automobile nel tentativo di infilarlo dentro, e lo avrebbero gettato in una camera di sicurezza svenuto e senza assistenza medica per dodici ore o giù di lì.

E se non sopravvive? Spesso la polizia usa il sotterfugio del “Non opporre resistenza!” per nascondere il fatto che stanno brutalizzando una persona che non solo non può più opporre resistenza, ma molto probabilmente non è neanche capace di agire. Basta un semplice spasmo, o il rinchiudersi nella posizione fetale con le braccia sulla testa, per sostenere la tesi della “resistenza” e giustificare l’allegro pestaggio della vittima da parte delle bestie in uniforme. Soltanto dopo salta fuori che la persona morta “opponendo resistenza” ha avuto un attacco epilettico o era in coma diabetico.

In un modo o nell’altro, se i filmati ripresi con i cellulari dovessero portare all’incriminazione dei passanti per eccesso di “protezione e servizio” prestati all’agente sotto assedio, loro potrebbero sempre chiedere il proscioglimento sostenendo di aver “seguito le procedure ufficiali” e di essere stati “in pericolo di vita”.

Ora, se qualcuno dei passanti dovesse scoprire di avere un taglietto o un graffio sulle nocche, o un pollice slogato da tutto quel proteggere e servire, potete stare sicuri che l’agente a terra avrebbe ricevuto un sacco di botte per ogni capello fuori posto. E se dovesse risultare che aveva un coltellino a serramanico in tasca – non parliamo di pistole d’ordinanza, manganelli, taser e spray al peperoncino – potete aggiungere alle accuse quella di “assalto con arma letale” o “assalto con l’intento di uccidere”.

Conclusione: il comandante Nestel dovrebbe ringraziare i passanti per non aver offerto lo stesso genere di “protezione e servizio” che gli agenti offrono alla popolazione ogni giorno che passa.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Well, it’s hard not to sympathize with the guy. “I’ve tried everything — tasing, beating, tear-gassing — and people still don’t like me!”

Sarcasm aside, the reader comments under the article reporting the story give Chief Nestel even more room for dismay:

“These cops are thugs and they shouldn’t be surprised when the people aren’t on their side.”

“All I see in that video is gang on gang violence.”

Philly cops, going back at least to Frank Rizzo’s tenure as mayor, have been notorious for their brutality and corruption, even among big city cops. In the late 90s ten officers were caught planting evidence and shaking down drug dealers for payoffs. Of course they can’t rest on those laurels forever. Since then, thanks to the Drug War and ongoing militarization of police culture, other big city police forces around the U.S. have narrowed the corruption gap considerably.

At any rate, Nestel should probably just be glad his “officer down” didn’t get the same kind of “protection and service” his subordinates provide to the people of Philadelphia every day. If he had, six of the bystanders might have surrounded him, repeatedly kicked his ribs, head and groin, rained countless baton blows down on him with maximum force, sprayed pepper spray in his eyes at point blank range, and tased him a few dozen times — all while screaming “Stop resisting! Stop resisting!” as they slammed his face into the concrete. And shot his dog. And threatened to beat up anyone who recorded the incident.

If he survived all that — many don’t — the helpful bystanders might have wrenched his shoulders out of joint cuffing him, slammed his head into the car a few times in the process of putting him in it, and then thrown him unconscious in a holding cell without medical attention for twelve hours or so.

What if he didn’t survive it? Police frequently use the “Stop resisting!” gambit to disguise the fact that they’re brutalizing a person who’s not only no longer capable of resisting, but most likely incapable of any agency at all. Simply spasming involuntarily in agony, or reflexively curling into a fetal position and putting one’s arms around one’s head, is enough to qualify as “resistance” and justify the uniformed beasts in continuing to gleefully assault their victim. And then it turns out that the person who died “resisting arrest” had been having an epileptic seizure or was in a diabetic coma.

Either way, if inconvenient cell phone video footage led to the helpful bystanders being investigated for excessive force in “protecting and serving” the beleaguered officer, they would most likely be exonerated on grounds that they “followed all official procedures” and were “in fear for their lives.”

But if any of the bystanders discovered a nick or scratch on their knuckles, or had a couple of sprained toes after all that protecting and serving, you can be sure the downed officer would have been slapped with an assault and battery charge for every mussed hair on their heads. And if he had even a pen knife in his pocket — let alone a police-issue gun, baton, taser and pepper spray — you can add “assault with a deadly weapon” or “assault with intent to kill” to all those charges.

So maybe Chief Nestel should be grateful the public didn’t step in and provide the same kind of “protection and service” that cops give the public every single day.

Translations for this article:

• Italian, La Polizia è “Servita e Protetta” Ma non gradisce.

I ran headlong into the monopolists and their incentive structure this weekend, on the occasion of my speaking at the Drexel University Student Liberty Front’s summer retreat in Philadelphia. In the early afternoon, our friend Michael Gurrieri stepped outside to smoke a rolled tobacco cigarette. He didn’t smoke it all, so he extinguished the flame and pocketed the remains for later. As he did so, the Philadelphia police were crossing the street to accost him and determine if he was smoking the wrong variety of leafy growth.

They demanded that Mike reveal the cigarette, which he refused on privacy grounds. As a result he was assaulted, thrown against the wall, and told to put his hands behind his back or the officer would “break his fucking arms.” Handcuffed, Mike asked to speak to the officer’s superior before proceeding. Two other officers arrived. At this point I was summoned from out of Darian Worden’s presentation on Practical Anarchy to observe the situation. I came out of the building in the presence of Stacy Litz, the event organizer, with my camera at the ready to begin recording. I was immediately approached by an aggressive and plump law enforcement official who bellowed at me that I was interfering with a police investigation and needed to move and put my camera away. I stated that he was a public officer in public who had no reasonable expectation of privacy and inquired if he was making legal order. He asked me if I was willing to bet that what I was doing was legal and removed his handcuffs. He approached me from the side and alerted me that if I didn’t put the camera away he would make it “his personal property” and take me down to the station. I backed up a little bit and pulled my camera up once more, at which point his temper broke and he erupted that he would “[expletive] me up and take me to [expletive] jail” if I didn’t comply with his order.

I later found out that he was bluffing. Pennsylvania does not have prohibitions against recording interactions with police officers. It didn’t matter though. I was then filled with adrenaline and more than a little intimidated. This well-armed man I didn’t know who was ostensibly there to keep the community safe was worried that I might create an accurate record of the actions of all parties. He was so opposed to my recording him and his cohorts that he threatened the brutalize me, abduct me, and then throw me in a cage.

If my friend had thereafter acted wrongly, then my video would have reflected his behavior and vindicated police retaliation, if not morally than at least in the eyes of the public. If the police had performed in an unprofessional or excessive way then the aggressors would be the subject of scrutiny. If they were going to continue in a just manner, wouldn’t they want their conduct a matter of public record to make sure that any subsequent use of force against the ‘perp’ was legitimate in case he later claimed otherwise? Their aversion to being recording clearly indicates their intentions to act maliciously against their victims and remain unaccountable for their transgressions.

Sadly, I didn’t know Philadelphia or Pennsylvania law well enough at that moment, so I wasn’t about to risk a bloodied body, obliterated or confiscated property, and a protracted legal endeavor for what very well might turn into another bogus and expensive wiretapping case for yet another liberty activist. Luckily, the ordeal ended soon, with Mike being released by his captors after a ‘good cop’ detailed him a twenty minute justification of the assault they had just committed.

Supposedly, when they saw Mike put the cigarette in his pocket they didn’t know if he had a gun (smokers are usually armed, apparently) so they needed to make sure that everyone in the community was safe. Well, except for Mike. Consciences of the cops salved, we returned to our conference and collectively decompressed from the absurdity we had just experienced.

This is a clear anecdotal example for minarchists of why having a monopoly on the most crucial services of justice and defense systems should be subject to market forces. The thugs we encountered that day in Philly could never behave so poorly in a world where the people who paid their bills could begin purchasing rights-protection services from other less abusive providers. Even with moral outrage removed from the mind of the consumer and only economic effects taken into account, firms that recklessly aggressed against innocent people would have to charge more due to their increased liability and legal exposure, and would thus continually lose market share until they ceased to exist.

Without coercive monopolistic control of this market sector, police officers may even actively seek to record their own behavior for public record, both to assure their own firm of their continued reliability and professionalism as well as to disprove any false accusations of illegitimate behavior from competitors.

We weren’t done with the monopolists that day just yet, however.

Later that night, when our reflections on the excitement of the day had nearly petered out, we went to the closing social to have a few drinks and bring the event to a conclusion. A group wanted to have a smoke, so some of us followed them outside to keep them company, spotting a few grazing cops on our way out. In front of the restaurant was a handicapped parking space occupied by, you guessed it, a squad car. Seeking some small token of justice from his assault at the hands of the blue shirt gang that morning, Mike took the initiative and told the proprietors of the restaurant that there was someone parked in the handicapped spot who did not have the appropriate credentials. They came and checked it out, then disappeared inside to presumably alert the kindly officers that they needed to follow the laws they were supposed to be enforcing.

The lawbreakers came outside and meandered up to us to inquire as to why we couldn’t have just asked them personally to move it. Mike calmly retorted that he was being righteous and following the law, to which the cop replied that he was actually “being retarded.” As he walked away, we asked him if he was handicapped or above the law. He grumbled, possibly affirming that he was both.

Police abuse of handicapped spot in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.