Banner Drop in Lafayette in Solidarity with Marvin Booker!!

A Banner reading All Cops R Murderers Justice 4 Marvin Booker was hung about 3 p.m. in the afternoon on Highway 287 and the Emma St. overpass.  Justice for Marvin Booker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

solidarity!

great job, making this a highly visible issue all over Colorado should be a priority for those seeking justice for Marvin Booker. Thank you for your actions and stay safe.

Banner Drop

I'm glad people did this.  Banner drops are more empowering and effective than small symbolic protests.  But please be more thoughtful in choosing your words.  In fact, all cops are not murderers.  Some have never fired their gun in anger on duty.  You could have just said "cops are murderers" instead, because that is true.  Some cops are murderers.  Now, all cops may be complicit in murder by participating in the police culture of silence, but that is different.  If that was your point, you could say "All cops are complicit in murder."  Furthermore, exagerations, hyperbole, and inflamatory language do no good.  That's what RAIM does.  Neither the Whether Underground nor the Black Panthers could play down their rhetoric with either the authorities or their own self image.  It turns people off and makes radicals appear delusional, as if they weren't already portrayed that way by the state.

Consistency to the same effect

You're absolutely right about the effect of exaggerations, hyperbole, and inflammatory language, especially in RAIM's case (don't even get me started), however the slogan merely gets attention, as RAIM and the like piss that attention away by shooting their mouths off unchecked by their minds. But if we use the attention grabbing power of strong statements, and I mean to utilize the window of opportunity, then we can keep a consistent message that really draws authority into question, realistically, and I don't think the slogan on the banner is the death nail in that effort. It is usually that groups like RAIM just keep spewing the same crap instead of elaborating. It helps to be consistent, rationally and ethically, as long as a solution can be seen as feasible. But just being consistent on the surface, like RAIM, does absolutely no good, you're right, and even can be detrimental. Perhaps we should suggest publicly that cops who do strive to not fulfill their role as murderers, what is expected of them implicitly by the corporate state, are like conscientious objectors in the military, and should be afforded such status. The question then is how to put that form of conscientious objection into legally pertinent terms and identifying and defining the substance of it. If such status were recognized then we could actually get statistics on police personalities, and then we'd know whether or not there are a few bad apples or the whole force is bad apples with a few exceptions. What would that mean for the legitimacy of the state? I'm sure you can imagine. 

Cops and murder

"All cops are murderers" poses the question of why do we need cops? What is it about us that makes police, rationally speaking, necessary? We create our own criminal population and cops play a key role in that process, then they are charged with holding us all hostage to their Hobbesian delusions. 'Murderer' in the sense of that slogan is more of a job title than a statement about their personalities. Cops striving to never shoot their weapons is a dereliction of duty under the false premise of 24 hour threats to security. Consider who's security this is. It is only people who by any moral rationalizing deserve what they get, or inevitably constitute themselves as legitimate targets. Cops are charged with the task of protecting thieves, liars and thugs of capital, not all of us. Their presence in our communities, in essence and effect, works to divide us and pit us against one another. They can't claim there are winners and losers by chance in a free market when they select the losers arbitrarily. The cops don't all know that they are supposed to be cold blooded murderers, but most of them do get it. Those who strive not to be that way are not a majority or the departments would all crumble under their dissent, and their dereliction of duty, just as with such cases of soldiers in war, to dissidents against this evil system, are therefore "patriots." We should not expect them to be rewarded for that by their bosses, but we can surely appreciate their refusal to carry out their role as murderers. But you must remember, if you want security, you want murderers. If you want freedom from criminals then you want revolution. Be consistent. 

ha

"if you want security, you want murderers."

That's pretty astute there, Evan. I agree with your uh, counter-critique(?) of the "All Cops Are Murderers" slogan. Additionally, I'd like to state that as you mentioned the police being the first line of defense for the class enemies, those people along with the police and military powers under their control systemically murder people on the daily basis. If the cop is there to uphold that system and doesn't kill anything in the process, they are an accessory to murder at the very least.

"Every cop a murderer, every judge an accomplice."

Continuing the conversation

Sorry to bring up an old conversation, but I've been thinking about it for a while and it's been bugging me.

I don't think we should use a state and religion defined word like "murderer."  The same goes with, "accessory to murder".  In that sense I disagree with Evan, who wrote, "the question then is how to put that form of conscientious objection into legally pertinent terms and identifying and defining the substance of it."  

Murder means it's ok to kill as long as its legal, such as for US soldiers following the rules of engagement in Afghanistan.  Or in religious terms, as long as you are fighting an enemy that god wills you to fight (old testament.)

I assume that you are using murder as something else, such as only killing humans in situations other than self-defense or revolution. For it seems according to Evan, as cops protect the lives of "thieves, liars and thugs of capital" in their role of providing "security,"  that this implies that killing those people would otherwise be ok.  But perhaps I misunderstand Evan, and he only refers to such people because they need to be delt with in some  other way short of killing.

I also see some further equivocation in the use of "murderer'.  Whereas I thought it refered to someone who had murdered someone else, it seems it's more of a functional explanation, where someone is a murderer if they're trained and prepaired to murder someone else.  This is evidenced in the statement, "if you want security, you want murderers."  If however, you're still only a murderer if you actually kill someone, then my point, that not all cops are murderers, is still valid.  The same goes to, "they are an accessory to murder at the very least."  And as I said before, I question the relavence of the legal concept, "accessory to murder" and also as I thought of that from the beginning.  However, "All Cops are Murderers or Accessory to Murderers" would be an awkward banner drop and so I merely recommended "Cops are Murderers" in its place, although now I wonder if "Cops are Killers" might be better.