This special edition of Cops are here to protect you is brought to you from the streets of Occupied Denver, during the recent police riots against people protesting the Democratic National Convention.

Government cops protect you by yanking random dark-skinned men out of the park for no clear reason. Then, if you should walk up and try to take some photographs of what’s happening, or ask them why they’re arresting a dark-skinned man who, as far as anyone could tell, was standing around not doing anything wrong, they’ll protect you by jabbing you with a stick. Then, if you should dare to verbally demand that your public servants stop jabbing you with a stick for asking questions, they’ll make sure you’re good and protected by screaming Back up, bitch! in your face and slamming you to the ground with a body check from the same stick.

Oh, and then grabbing you and hauling you away to jail when you try to talk to reporters about what just happened.

The woman shown on video being shoved to the ground by a Denver police officer says the officer hit her four times with his baton in an incident she describes as unprovoked.

CodePink protester Alicia Forrest, 24, was released on $500 bail Tuesday night and has a court date for late September, she said Wednesday at an anti-war protest march through the middle of Denver.

I’m a little sore, she said, but I’ll make it.

Forrest is a former fashion designer from Los Angeles.

She and others were asking officers why they were arresting another protester Tuesday afternoon outside Civic Center Park when the officer poked her twice with his baton. He then pushed her with the long side of the stick once, Forrest said, before yelling, Back up, b—- and shoving her hard to the ground.

The final shove was captured by a Rocky videographer.

. . . I was taking photos (and) he kept hitting me with his baton, she said. I was so shocked that he did that.

Forrest and CodePink said the officer was reassigned and can no longer interact with demonstrators, but that could not be immediately confirmed Wednesday.

Forrest was in jail about five hours, then spent another two hours talking with the Denver Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division, she said.

— Paul A. Anthony, Rocky Mountain News (2008-08-28):

I suppose it’s for the best that he can’t get all interactive on demonstrators’ asses anymore. But if it is true that he acted improperly enough to yank him from protest control duty, then isn’t also the case that he violated the rights of an innocent woman with his use of force? And, if so, why is this dangerous thug — who feels perfectly free to beat an unarmed woman with a stick, while screaming misogynistic curses at her, apparently for nothing more than daring to give him lip — why, I say, is he not in jail on charges of assault and battery?

See also:

• GT 2008-06-03: Cops are here to protect you. (#6)
• GT 2008-05-20: Cops are here to protect you. (#5)
• GT 2008-05-11: Cops are here to protect you. (#4)
• GT 2008-05-10: Cops are here to protect you. (#3)
• GT 2008-02-26: Cops are here to protect you. (#2)
• GT 2008-02-18: Cops are here to protect you.
• GT 2007-11-09: You got served and protected.

Did you know …

1. … that Christian anarchism (think William Lloyd Garrison or Leo Tolstoy) is just like anti-abortion terrorism and Christian Reconstructionism?

2. … that if you, personally, don’t mind chipping in for public roads, schools and sewer systems, that constitutes a knock-down refutation of the anarcho-capitalist complaint against taxation?

3. … that anti-capitalist anarchists are in fact Maoists who want a do-over of Bolshevik totalitarianism?

4. … that dismantling the right of habeas corpus is, in fact, a step towards anarchism?

5. … that Republican legislators and lobbyists who occasionally express contempt for government are, in fact, paradigm cases of anarchists?

It’s true! I read it on the Internet.. (Thanks, Guerilla Science.)

Here, at least, is something that anarchists of all sects, organizations, and creeds can come together on: Lisa Jones is a know-nothing blowhard. You can let her know what you think at HeyJones@gmail.com. Here’s my contribution:

Ms. Jones,

I recently read your column, The battle between law and anarchy, for the Rocky Mountain News. You wondered if most political debates today aren’t between right and left, but between anarchism and rule of law. I think you’re probably right, but I can’t say that I’m entirely convinced by your brief in favor of the rule of law.

There’s a lot to wonder about; for example, your comparison of the pacifist Christian anarchism of Leo Tolstoy or William Lloyd Garrison (who described complete nonviolence as one of the highest Christian duties) to the statist politics of the Christian Reconstruction movement seems a bit strained, as does your attempt to compare anti-capitalist anarchists such as Emma Goldman or Mikhail Bakunin to the death march of forced collectivism under Mao Zedong. (For the record, you might try reading the extensive and fierce anarchist polemics against Bolshevik tyranny, such as Goldman’s My Disillusionment in Russia.) I was also a bit puzzled by your attempt to portray Republican lobbyist Grover Norquist as an anarchist, when part of the point of the quip that you refer to (about making government so small you can drown it in the bathtub) is that he doesn’t want to abolish the government.

But for the moment I want to focus on a more theoretical point. In the course of criticising anarcho-capitalism, you say:

But anarcho-capitalists also oppose taxation and the very existence of the state. They want to privatize all public institutions, such as schools, and rely on a self-regulating competitive marketplace instead of government. …

Plus, I don’t mind chipping in for public roads, schools and sewer systems. Insofar as tax revenues are used wisely for the common good, I support limited taxation.

Actually, all anarchists oppose taxation and the very existence of the state. That’s what makes them anarchists rather than statists. But I’m a bit puzzled by the justification you give for limited taxation. If you, personally, don’t mind chipping in for public roads, schools, and sewer systems, then no anarchist would suggest that you shouldn’t be allowed to get out your checkbook and make a donation. But that’s not taxation. Taxation is what happens when other people who don’t want to chip in are forced to do so. Do you think that you have the right to sign away other people’s money without their consent? If not, why does your personal willingness to pay for public goods have anything to do with the argument?

Curiously,
Charles Johnson

Let’s hear your response!