"Human Rights" protect criminals to the detriment of law abiding citizens

A woman started a scuffle with a policeman over a jaywalking ticket.  Then she resists arrest. Her friend shoves the policeman.  The policeman, faced with 2 unruly women scuffling with him, punches one girl in the face and then arrests both.

Again and again, he [the officer] tried to subdue the 19-year old. But the struggle continued. Suddenly, from the sidelines jumped the girl’s 17-year old friend. She shoved the officer out of the way. […] He closes his fist, winds up, and lands a hard right to her face.

[Human Rights proponent:] I don’t excuse her behavior. She was clearly in the wrong. But again, a force of a punch to the face is not justifiable.
See the entire video with transcript & subtitles

Human Rights seems to be mainly concerned with protecting criminals. People who are wrong. You don’t resist a police officer. You don’t shove a police officer. First you put yourself outside of the law, and then you look for protection of the law.

How does a police officer arrest 2 unruly women? If he maced and tasered them, that would be ok? He has to do a profound analysis, if the girls will escalate? How does he know if more people will interfere? Or if one woman has fighting skills, weapons? So a police officer has to take risks to protect the human rights of girls that are clearly wrong and that attack him!?

Interestingly, dictatorships do not have major crime problems. Nor do Brazilian shanty towns dominated by criminal gangs, or cities controlled by the mafia. Most smaller criminals can get subdued by rigorous law and order.

Devli’s advocate s provocative proposal
The suspension of due process, normal in alleged rape, child abuse and child porn cases, should be applied to crimes with real violence and real victims, where public safety is at stake. If simple unproven accusations would suffice to arrest and try bullies and street criminals, maybe public safety could be reinstated


“Human Rights”-in-favor-of-Criminals Scheme

Example: ->


Girls shoving Policemen Gang attack victim stabs attacking gang banger Rodney King
(Los Angeles,1992)
“Bad guy” does something wrong or illegal Girls start scuffle with policeman, resist arrest & attack policeman on duty Group of thugs attack innocent students. Already knocked down one victim. Attacks next victim * Rodney King takes LA police on high speed car chase

* risking life of many innocent drivers and pedestrians on the way,

* He resists arrest, resists handcuffs, and attacks arresting policemen.

“Good Guy” reacts Unable to handcuff 2 unruly girls at the same time, policeman returns a punch to the girl that shoved him Next victim pulls a knife, and stabs attacker in throat. Police taser and beat in attempt to subdue and handcuff.

Rodney King keeps getting up. Police takes necessary measures to subdue him.

Even if they were overreacting, how serious is that compared to felony reckless driving, parole violation and drunk driving?

“Human Rights” worry about the guilty criminals Girl interferes with police work. Attacks policeman who is busy with another unruly girl.

Poor girl got a punch after attacking a policeman who, alone, faces 2 attackers

A group of thugs attacks innocent guys with punches. A victim defends himself with a knife.

How unjust for the attacker to get stabbed without prior warning

If police tells you to lie down and you get up, you must be aware of the consequences.

Even more if you are clearly wrong, drunk driving, parole violation and reckless driving on escape attempt.

Poor guy: almost killed innocent citizens with his car, could have injured police officers on duty, and got some beating with no long term effects.

“Human Rights” don’t get concerned about victims, safety of society and law abiding citizens Police should engage in half hour scuffle with the girls. If girls use weapons, or more people enter in the fight, tough luck.

If the girls escape and thus learn that it pays to resist police, tough luck too.

Attack victim has risk his life

  • by first warning the gangster that he will stab him,
  • losing the element of surprise.
  • allowing the gangsters to get their own weapons,  or
    to regroup and gang up on him, or

When attacked by a group of thugs, victim has to do a legal analysis of the case before acting.

Safety of policemen is not important.

Safety of society against criminal reckless driving felons is not important.

“Good Guy” gets into trouble Police get suspended, suffer inquiry. Press and “anti-racists” attack the police for doing their duty. In this case the attack victim, a student, got 3 years 9 months unsuspended jail sentence! Police suffered inquiry, legal challenges.
Either way, “good guys” get into trouble, even if they act differently At other occasions, police may get injured for reacting too lightly or too slow Had he wasted time with warnings, and not defended himself, he could have been knocked down, beaten to death. The attackers could have gotten out their (bigger) knives.  He might have been attacked by the entire group of the agressor. If police is too lenient, they may suffer consequences:

  • police may get hit, injured,
  • if the criminal happens to have a weapon police can get shot and die
  • or if he escapes due to police leniency police will be reprimanded
  • if he escapes, he will continue endangering innocent bystanders
The exact “human right” of the criminal Attack police trying to arrest your friend and have the human right not get punched You may knock down one person, attack the next person. You have the human right to be politely warned before getting knived in self-defense. Human right to resist police, flee for an hour endangering hundreds of people’s life, continuing to resist, try to attack police, being potentially armed, not surrender to police. You have the human right not get beaten into submission until you get handcuffed
Sources of information Video with transcript & subtitles Prison for Self Defense
Prison for Self Defense (2)
Prison term length reconsidered
Rodney King (Wikipedia)

More about the Rodney King Case

I myself have been brainwashed by mainstream political press. Only now, reading up on the case, did I see how much King was wrong. A clear carrer criminal wife and child beater, robber, habitual drunk driving drug addict.

Rodney King’s criminal history played a large role in the high-speed chase that led to his arrest, in his controversial and violent arrest, and in the trials that followed. King explained his decision to flee–at a speed exceeding 110 mph–from CHP officers as resulting from a fear that his arrest for speeding would lead to a revocation of his parole and a return to prison: “I was scared of going back to prison and I just kind of thought the problem would just go away.” Sergeant Stacey Koon, the supervising officer at King’s arrest, concluded (correctly, it turned out) from King’s “buffed out appearance” that he was most likely an ex-con who had been working out on prison weights–and assumed therefore that he was a dangerous character. Finally, it was King’s criminal history that explained the decision of prosecutors to keep him off the witness stand. If King testified, defense attorneys would be allowed to present the jury with his record of arrests–a record that might influence their deliberations. The Arrest Record of Rodney King

Why were the cops beating Rodney King? The politically correct answer is: Because he was black. But so were the other men in the car with him, when he was leading the police on a high-speed chase — and none of these other black men was beaten. What was the difference? Anyone who knows anything about police procedures, even if only from watching TV programs like “Cops,” knows that the police often order suspects to lie face down on the ground while they handcuff them behind their backs when they arrest them. That is what the police ordered Rodney King to do. But instead he shook his behind at the cops. They tried to wrestle him down but he was too big and strong for them. They fired electrified darts into him that were supposed to immobilize him, but that didn’t get the job done either. Twice he got up and advanced on the cops. At that point, they had not had a chance to search him and had no way of knowing whether he was armed or not. Arresting a huge, strong, and defiant man is something that most people have — fortunately — never had to do. You might think that this would make observers reluctant to second-guess whatever desperate measures were taken in this situation. But for some people, ignorance simply liberates them from the narrow confines of facts. Even after Rodney King was finally gotten down on the ground, he would not turn face down with his hands behind him, so that the police could handcuff him and search him. In the edited selection of videotape that shocked so many people, Rodney King was still not complying with these instructions. He was trying to ward off the blows — and to get back up — which would have posed a danger both to the cops and to himself. If he ended up succeeding in leaving the police no choice but to shoot him, that would have been the worst-case scenario for all. Rodney King was not beaten for his race

Somali pirates

Elsewhere I had mentioned, that Somali pirates, who were arrested robbing international ships, gain political asylum in European Countries with the rights to bring their families. How come, normal law abiding Somalis don’t get invited to have a new life in Europe?

“Bad guy” does something wrong or illegal Girls start scuffle with policeman, resist arrest & attack policeman on duty Group of thugs attack innocent students. Already knocked down one victim. Attacks next victim * Rodney King takes LA police on high speed car chase

* risking life of many innocent drivers and pedestrians on the way,

* He resists arrest, resists handcuffs, and attacks arresting policemen.

5 thoughts on “"Human Rights" protect criminals to the detriment of law abiding citizens”

  1. As far as I know, any officer facing a physical threat has the right, and duty, to use any weopon at his/her disposal to stop the assault. These two stupid young girls are lucky they didn’t get shot, and should learn to NEVER put your hands on an officer!

  2. I think the officer was within reason for hitting her. she clearly wasn’t hurt, and she should have minded her own business. she wasn’t even the one getting arrested.I don’t think it was a malicious act. I also don’t think it was racially motivated. He was alone, meaning he had no back-up. In my opinion, he did what he had to do.

  3. Is there any law enforcment?
    If so why is my record a product of fraud?
    How can cops allow felons in the police dept.?
    If you want police committing crimes then they must do the smae ro everyone or it is called

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.