“Indignities to an AGW”

Eric Peters Autos

There is a law on the books to cover pretty much everything, but when there isn’t, just make one up to suit.

It covers all the bases and makes de facto what isn’t – yet – de jure: That the law is whatever those who enforce it claim it is, even when it isn’t.

And you’d better obey.

An example – one of many readily viewable on YouTube and elsewhere – popped up the other day. A student in North Carolina was pulled over by an AGW for “Indignities to an AGW.”

The man said, oink! oink! to the AGW as he drove by.

This is not illegal. But the affronted AGW made up a law – “Indignities to an AGW” – and used threats of murderous violence (inherent in every stop by an AGW, it is important to keep in mind) to teach the man a lesson about failing to show proper – though not legally required – respect and deference to an AGW.

Hand on her government-issued gun, the mirrored-sunglass wearing enforcer of non-laws demands the man surrender his papers.

The man initially stands his ground, refusing to provide them – his license – since as he very correctly points out to the AGW, who ought to know the law – AGWs can’t just pull people over and demand their papers unless the AGW has a lawful reason to make the stop.

“Indignities to an AGW” can be found nowhere on the books.

The AGW – a “law enforcement officer,” as they prefer to be styled- simply made up a law and then enforced it.

This is a crime – and should be treated as such – but almost never is.

For some ineffable reason, “law-enforcing” AGWs are routinely caught on film making up laws, as here, and then enforcing them – without any legal repercussions.

It is astonishing. Outrageous.

Of all the people who ought to “know the law” – as ordinary people are often told they are obliged to – AGWs ought to know it better.

And they certainly ought to be held at least as responsible for breaking the law as we are.

This is not merely ignorance of the law; it is abuse of the law. The worst sort because exercised by someone with a gun, empowered by the government to use it to summarily enforce whatever law they make up.

Remember that every encounter with an AGW is under duress. There is always the implied threat of murderous violence.

They know it – and leverage it.

This explains why the man gave in to the illegal demand of the AGW and surrendered his papers rather than just told her oink! oink! and drove away. If he had done that, the AGW probably would have Hut! Hut! Hutted! him.

Possibly to death, while squealing about her “safety” and the “threat” the man presented.

In the aftermath, the man – assuming he survived – would likely have received a settlement, paid by the tax cattle of his state/county on behalf of the AGW. But he might not have survived and so, like most of us, he submitted to the illegal demands of this armed stranger, whose porcine ego had been affronted, even though no law had been violated.

If oink! oink! is now a crime, how about a frown? “Failure to smile,” perhaps?

Whatever your view of the laws being enforced these days, hopefully everyone can agree there is no justifying the enforcement of laws which don’t exist – regardless of the hurt feelings and bruised ego of an armed government worker.

It ought to go without saying that a person whose ego is so fragile that they will resort to bullying people whom they know (or ought to know) haven’t broken any laws but just because they can – because they are armed – is the sort of person who has as much business carrying a loaded weapon as a pedophile priest has being in a kindergarten.

Eric Peters Autos