Mar 182012
 

Slwerner had this to say about law enforcement officers:

I think that all too often some of the guys in the Manosphere get a distorted view of law enforcement based on the bad acts of a relatively few (a sort of Apex Fallicy itself). And, even when it comes to those officers who are just doing the job they are assigned (and pledged) to do, the same guys fail to try to put themselves into the officers shoes and to try to understand what that officer is up against, both as a sworn officer of the law and as a man who is likely to also have a wife (or girlfreind) and family,

While there are some officers who are simply brain-washed White-Knights, empowered by the state to act in accordance with their female-pedestalizing tendencies, and even some who are just bullies with badges, they are not representative of everyone in law enforcement.

There are plenty of good men, men with consciences, and men who do understand that men are systemically disadvantaged in society who also wear the badge. They don’t look forward to having to arrest men for allegations of DV nor date-rape. They are required to do so. They’d often prefer to arrest the women (if they must arrest anyone at all), but they know full well the sh*t that will hit the fan if they haul cupcake in instead of the guy.

This extends into the ranks of prosecutors as well. My own introduction into the world of Men’s Rights was greatly hasten by my wife’s (a long-time prosecutor) detailing the abuses of the court that she and her fellow prosecutors routinely witness woman perpetrating upon their boyfriends and husbands (even the decidedly feminist prosecutors all know and openly acknowledge that it is quite normal for a woman to falsely accuse a man of DV or some sexual impropriety in cases where child custody will be an issue). Call Caryn S. Fennell, who provides very efficient family law legal services.

Those who are in law enforcement are, as you note, help to much higher (personal) standards than are other citizens.

My own belief is that those of us in the Manosphere who care about men and men’s issues ought to encouraging LEO’s (especially the men) rather than condemning them as so often is the case. Most of them easily understand the pitfalls that they as men face, in no small measure becuase they realize that the penalties are likely to hit them even harder should they mess up, or be falsely accused. Even the gung-ho White-Knights who spend some time doing actual police work, and dealing with the public, come to recognize that there are plenty of women who deserve to be in jail rather than on pedestals, women who fully deserve their sad plights, thanks to their own choices, and that there is no “man” who is to blame for the choices that (some) women make.

These men might be our natural allies, if only we (collectively) weren’t so prone to heap scorn upon all of them because we have focused on the actions of but a select few.

I agree with this.  In too many cases the MRM or the manosphere works to alienate men such as police officers instead of trying to engage and include them.  (I would also add men who work in the national security apparatus as a group we need to try and engage and include them for similar reasons as I mentioned in a Spearhead article in 2010.)  The benefit to including these men in the MRM is massive.  Feminist laws will lose their effectiveness if law enforcement officers refuse to enforce them.  For LEOs to refuse to enforce feminist laws will require them to know that there is a larger group of men out there who are against feminism.  (This is true for a lot of men beyond LEOs.  How many men are against feminism but afraid to speak up because they think they’re the only one?)

Getting LEOs on our side would be a major accomplishment for the MRM with massive benefits.  To do this we need to think in terms of engagement and inclusion of these men and not paranoid attacks. Take a look at Evanns Collection Law if you want a good Judgment Enforcement Law Firm.

  48 Responses to “We Need To Work To Include Law Enforcement Officers In The MRM”

  1. Cops don’t get to choose to enforce the lawz.In fact they must please the court and prosecutor.

    For all that cops cannot do, they sure did one thing:
    They got policies enacted that assure them of a hearing and no ex-parte action.
    (something the rest of us “commoners” do not have.)

    Yep, the majority of cops are great guys,and will handcuff you ever so politely and also watch your head on the way into the backseat.

    What they will not do is refuse to enforce the misandrist laws and lack of due process.
    With the separate sets of handling for these matters they are not motivated either.(Protected)

    So you see it’s nothing personal,just your money or your freedom, no need to become upset.

  2. slwerner’s wife is a Prosecutor (of Men)

    now, you can say Prosecutor Wife dispenses “justice” equally, but any honest person looking at the U.S. “justice” system knows its a thin cover for anti-male totalitarianism (special laws, arrest stats, sentencing stats, prison conditions, the list goes on and on)

    any HONEST cop sees the same thing, and thus has no excuse for not fleeing from such obvious evil

    US court-rooms are rapidly becoming dominated by females — female “judges” (ptooey) and female Prosecutors (ptooey) and female court-clerks far as the eye can see

    the only males left in the court-rooms are the cops and the Fresh Meat

    and there is a never-ending supply of Fresh Meat, and it is overwhelmingly male (because that’s who the Criminals are, doncha know? lol)

    and baby dont those FemJudges and FemProsecutors just LOVE the power they now have to crush the lives of good men!

    yes indeed they enjoy every gloating minute of their Empowerment, while the mere males cower in fear and shame before them, and are led away in chains (by other “men”) to pay their Debt to Sistah Sossity

    don’t think so? spend a couple weeks in your local court-rooms, watch for yourselves

    the facile argument that “many cops are Good Cops” is bullshit — they are supporting and profiting from a system run largely for the financial, psychological, and socio-political benefit of women. . . a system which clearly persecutes men and boys, and in fact acts as a Predator — not a Protector — towards those men and boys

    the red-herring of “most cops are Good Guys” does not fly, nor will collusion with such an unjust, male-destoying system be excused

    “I’m just following orders” and “I’m just doing the will of the Legislatures” and “I’m just trying to support my family like a good, responsible man” are not going to fly

    no Good Man would have ANYTHING to do with police, law, prisons, or any other aspect of a “justice system” that in truth is a Just Sis Sistem, fronted by men who do the dirty work for Big Sister and the largest prison-industrial-complex the world has ever seen

    shame on U.S. men, shame on slwerner, and shame on the cops who sell-out their masculinity and oppress their brothers for a fat paycheck and a secure positions in their “communities”

    oh p.s. and shame on you for writing an article supporting this monstrousness

  3. Gee, PMAFT, I feel like I should have warned you that you’d just get flamed for daring to suggest that not all cops are evil and looking to persecute other men randomly.

    These cop-haters probably lack the captivity to realize that the victims of most men who do get prosecuted and sent to prison were other men. Men who kttack, beat, shoot, stab, and killed other men over money, women, and often merely the appearance of ‘disrespect’. Men who’ve victimized their fellow men via fraud andlow man via theft.

    I suppose that ray can consider such men as his hero’s, and hope that they would be better allies for all men; but I’m not so inclined to believe that those male violent criminals who displayed a propensity to turn against their fellow man would ever make reliable allies when much of their criminality has come about due to their quest for money and pussy.

    Of course, ray and freebies will counter that cops likewise betray there fellow men. But the simple, and easily proven reality is that only a fraction of all police work, of all prosecutorial work, of all that the criminal justice system as a whole bandleader those cases in which men are alleged to have targeted women for victimization.

    Unfortunately, many who lack the mental acumen to protect more than just a small slice of reality at a time will think of an instance of a man suffering a seeming injustice, and will not be able to consider other factors beyond those they can see as the most proximate agents of injustice – the police.

    Their smaller minds are unable to imagine that cops may well have other considerations beyond a desire to persecute men, and simply expect that all cops, in every situation, should be willing to throw away their jobs, their careers , their livelihoods just to protest the laws which direct them to act. They cannot even fathom that cops called to respond to an alleged crime might not be able to ascertain all the facts of a situation immediately, nor that some men accused of violent crime against a woman or a child might just be guilty.

    No, in their simple minds, all cops should just refuse to arrest any man, in any situation, regardless of the apparent facts presented to them (especially if the alleged victim is a woman).

    I suppose that they believe that Jerry Sanduskey, Bernie Matoff, and even Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh should have never been arrested? After all, their victims include women and children; and, apparently in their reality, men should never be arrested prosecuted, convicted, and punished for crimes against women and children?

    Now, all of this is not to suggest that there aren’t many serious issues and deficiencies with much of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. I’ve personally argued for many years that there certainly are, and even make specific suggestions as to how I believe improvements need to be made.

    But, this poorly considered idea that all cops are the enemy of men, seems no more honest nor intelligent than the feminist ideas of all men as oppressors and rapists, nor the SoCon/TradCon beliefs that women are morally superior and all failings ofall women can be traced back to the sins and failures of men in their lives.

    In fact, it seems to me that the cop-haters have an awful lot in common with the White-Knights they claim to hate – when something isn’t right with things, they recall too willing to single out men to throw under the bus, giving passes to any women who actually set injustices in motion.

    • I was aware that I would get flamed for this. That’s why I had to write this post. I agree with everything you’re saying because I’m tired of groups of men getting demonized. Like you said in your other comment, the MRM has enough enemies. We don’t need to create more especially from men who aren’t that likely to be sympathetic to feminism. It’s like there’s an allergy to reaching out to the greater majority of men.

  4. This article was well worth writing. It’s important to correct any misguided perceptions about law enforcement and how they might perceive the goals of the MRM as in any way inhumane. Very often, LEO’s are forced on pain of dismissal or worse to address the lies and false allegations of feminists.

    It’s tremendously important, in my opinion, to help out those who might be fighting corrupt ideologues from within. I don’t believe for a minute that such people don’t exist. While it may be de rigeur in some MRM fora to paint such broad brush strokes, no law enforcement agency is without genuine proponents of truth and justice. It behoves us, then, to deliver the anti-misandry message clearly and unashamedly in a way that these people can safely receive it.

    In that sense, “men’s rights movement” is not an apt descriptor. Almost every person who supports the MRM is concerned about the lies and injustice that have been forcibly injected into Western culture by feminism so it’s not a movement so much as responsible but global citizens speaking out against feminist injustice. Those who actively address the abuses and institutional corruption in the guise of feminism are human rights advocates. For both of these reasons, the MRM can rightly be called a humanitarian enterprise.

    Most major humanitarian organisations have three ideologies in common – justice, mercy and faith. So, does the MRM comply…?

    Justice is about the right use of power. Injustice is the abuse or misuse of power. Institutional feminism is misuse of female power. The MRM opposes this injustice. Check.

    Mercy is love-in-action. Where justice/power addresses the origins of someone’s personhood (or pain) mercy or compassion addresses the symptoms. The MRM has provided an outlet for men to vent, hear and address suffering and loss of personhood brought about by the misandric culture. Check.

    Faith is essentially trust that what we are experiencing with others is true. When faith is tested by, for example, lying, we mistrust others. Feminist lies have caused an entire generation of citizens to fear and mistrust its governers; those who speak out against this (e.g. the MRM) do so because they have faith that truth will prevail. Check.

    Many LEO’s will be allies to the MRM as long as truth, justice and faith in something better are the MRM’s defining elements. Interaction with law enforcement will therefore be neither good nor bad but inevitable as these defining elements clash with those who oppose them.

  5. I think that it might be useful to include this little nugget from RAINN: What happens to Rapists When They are Caught and Prosecuted?

    You’d think that if people like freebird and ray were correct in their beliefs, that an apologetically women’s advocacy organization like RAINN would have (mostly) goof things to say about police and prosecutors.

    But, as is quite apparent, they seem to put a lot of blame on those police and prosecutors for (what they believe to be the injustices of) nearly 84% of alleged rapists not being sent to prison, and their belief that only 1 rapist in 16 will ever be punished.

    Sure seems to me that RAINN (and most other women’s advocacy organizations) tend to think that the criminal justice system is just another patriarchal oppressor of women. Even self-identified feminist Dr. Eugene Kanin described the relationship between law enforcement and those in what Pierce Harlan has aptly dubbed the “Sexual Grievance Industry” as “adversarial”.

    Even the feminists most obsessed with perceived “crimes against women” do not consider men in law enforcement as allies, but rather men who must be coerced into enforcing misandry by passing laws that require that misandry (Girlwriteswhat had an excellent point in a recent video, pointing out that when police were first required police to arrest primary aggressors under VAWA, the arrest rate for female DV offenders went up, so the laws were changed to target “dominant aggressors” – a thinly-veiled proxy for men, by virtue of their typically being stronger than women. This fact clearly indicates that police weren’t simply looking for an excuse to arrest more men, and were perfectly happy to arrest women instead, but rather had to be reigned into following the misandric legislative designs via coercive regulations that would cost them their jobs if they refused to comply).

    Yet, some still believe that the MRM doesn’t have enough enemies already, and that we should not simply just reject men in law enforcement as possible allies, but that all such men should be declared enemies instead? Sure seems to me that they are unable to do any better than the shallow and uncritical analysis we’ve come to expect from man-hating gender-feminists.

    • You’d think that if people like freebird and ray were correct in their beliefs, that an apologetically women’s advocacy organization like RAINN would have (mostly) goof things to say about police and prosecutors.

      But, as is quite apparent, they seem to put a lot of blame on those police and prosecutors for (what they believe to be the injustices of) nearly 84% of alleged rapists not being sent to prison, and their belief that only 1 rapist in 16 will ever be punished.

      Ever seen a woman berate her hard-working long-suffering husband and impose demands for more,more,more?

      Same thing, but on a bigger scale.With women, not only is the personal political, it also works in reverse.The government is really just a very powerful husband as far as they are concerned, and since it is made up of men, naturally (in her mind) it exists to serve the will of women. The cops and feminists are tenuous “allies”,neither group really gives a shit about the other,but Daddy (the government) has told them both to “play nice” with each other,and for the most part,they do.

      For what it’s worth, I somewhat agree with your and slwerner’s (sp?) conclusion. If we can get cops to sign up, I say what the hell. But you have to understand the impediment to that course of action,it’s actually more complex than “We just aren’t welcoming enough to LEO’s.”. They follow a chain of command. The mugwumps at the top,a body of self-styled “experts” in economics,climate,psychology,astronomy,,blah,blah,blah, come up with a stupid ass idea about which direction to steer global policy in, they pass it down to the President,he passes it down through the courts,the military,the church,the schools and the police,etc. Every leader in the Western world is obviously working from the same script,and these bozos have decided ubiquitous birth control,entitlements for women,and suppression of the male population is the future.I think the reason behind this is that they are scared shitless that a combination of global warming, rising ocean levels,and overpopulation is going to wipe our species out,and they know that with easy abortion and the constant drumming of the “strong empowered woman” meme,they can get women so wrapped up in themselves that they will not make the choice to produce many children.It’s like what Hitler did to the Jews,only cheaper,quieter,and easier to disguise as a humanitarian effort to “improve health services for women”.

      Basically, feminism is a method of human sterilization.

      But that’s just my kooky conspiracy theory on the matter.

  6. Hitler’s Nazi SS and other LEOs were ‘just following orders’ when they unjustly imprisoned Jews.

    On Mancoat, we had a guy (NJ Slave, I think) who was a former LEO who had THIS to say: he said that no decent guy with a moral compass could stay in law enforcement and remain true to his core values; sooner or later, he’d have to go along to get along, or leave the force.

    • And yet, many LEO’s will never have to make a DV arrest. For instance, State Patrol Officers won’t be sent on DV calls at all. Nor will FBI, BATF, or DEA agents.

      And, although false DV (as well as false rape allegations) are a serious problem, they are still but a fraction of all matters that LEO’s will be called on to handle. And, outside of the issues of DV and (false) rape allegations, are there really any other serious misandric functions of LE and the criminal justice system?

      I’m sure that quite a few of those who count themselves amongst the cop-haters have their own personal issue with LE that have nothing to do with DV/sexual assault. I’m sorry, but I don’t count some guy’s war with the the criminal justice system for taking away his drivers licence due to his multiple DUI’s as a men’s rights issue. Women don’t necessarily get a free pass on drunk driving either.

      And, even on the DV arrest issue, what quite a few seem to miss is that women do also get arrested (especially in lesbian relationships, where both the rate and levels of violence are quite high).

      Perhaps it’s somewhat better here in Colorado, as there are no mandatory arrests required other than where someone has discernible injuries. As long as cops can settle down a situation, and one person will agree to leave for the night to cool-off, the cops can feel certain that nothing further will happen, and they are comfortable not arresting anyone. Yes, a summons will likely be issued, but cops are mostly just interested in making sure that no one gets hurt.

      Many in the MRM may see any action by police which adversely affects a man as something that no LEO should ever be willing to do. But, the reality remains that some men DO violently offend against women (and children). It is the fact that they do which makes it possible for other women to falsely accuse innocent men. The too oft expressed idea that we in the MRM should “excuse” violent men based on the fact that many women will falsely accuse is every bit as inane and wrong-headed as the idea we hear from feminists and white-knights that society needed worry about men falsely accused because some women are truly victims.

      Wrong is still wrong, evil is still evil, and crimes are still crimes, all regardless of the genders of people involved.

      What I’d argue is the only legitimate MRM arguments against LE and the criminal justice system are those which demand equal treatment. Accused men should be afford the same presumption of innocence, even when the alleged victim is a woman. Unless there are reasonable articulable justifications, investigations need to be conducted regarding allegations made against them before men are arrested. And, women should be sentenced equally to men for the same crimes.

      But these arguments that any arrests of any man in any instance is an affront to men’s rights are just to damned weak to even begin to take seriously.

      And, guys like ray who claim God sent tornadoes to kill dozens just so he could damage a couple of police cars as a warning to LE – well, do you really want to defend that sort of BS?

  7. My work collegue was a police officer (in Australia)and when he started he used to arrest men for domestic violence, after his divorce he never arrested another man for DV but aimed at consiliation.

    Law enforcers can definitely be encouraged to change.

  8. Police officers get divorced at high rates, and their exes have more leverage than the standard woman does. The standard domestic violence and child abuse charges can cause an officer to be discharged and blackballed, and their women take full advantage of this. Police and the MRM are natural allies, which is why the feminists are so hard on officers that don’t toe their line.
    Our best move is to continue proving that the feminist policies are wrong, and push for the officer getting more latitude in their response.

    • Tweell – ”Our best move is to continue proving that the feminist policies are wrong, and push for the officer getting more latitude in their response.”

      Indeed. Actually, some of the best protections that can be gained for individual men come from a having the rank and file of PD’s better educated as to the men’s side of issues.

      One very good example of how this can work out has come through the effort’s of Pierce Harlan and E. Steven Berkimer of The False Rape Society (Now the “Community Of The Falsely Accused http://www.cotwa.info/).

      Back when they launched their effort at the tail-end of 2007, the news accounts of rape allegations which turned out to have been fabricated (thanks to police investigations, BTW) typically included details of how the innocent man had been summarily arrested (based solely on the word of the woman accusing him, or his unfortunate resemblance to her description), often including a most humiliating a reputation-destroying “perp walk”, his prolong detainment, forced intimate exams, brow-beating by police, and, of course, his name being spread through the media associating him as a rapist. Thus, by the time he was finally cleared by the police investigation, the damage was (often irreversibly) already done to him.

      Now, let me quickly add this into the mix:

      Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar College, a man-hating gender-feminist, who is also and idiot (but I repeat myself), and a world-class asshole (Damned! Repeating myself again) infamously stated of men falsely accused of rape:

      They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them.

      Now, while this position is, on the whole, entirely lacking in both merit and virtue, I would allow one unique caveat – that police, who are themselves frequently falsely accused when arresting women, might actually be able to gain meaningful and useful education by being put though the meat-grinder that such an allegation against them will automatically trigger [I say this guardedly, based on the reality that in this day and age, there is usually ample video technology deployed which allows for falsely accused cops to be quickly cleared before they suffer any real and lasting harms].

      Merely facing the potential of loss of their career, loss of respect, and the probability of the loss their freedoms (as an ex-cop in prison, no less) can serve as a very sobering revelation of what other men face, as well as an indication to them of just how easily, and how flippantly, woman can and do make false allegations as they believe it will suit them to do so.

      Comin’s mistakenly assumed that men faced with horror of what a false allegation could mean for them would be asking themselves about how women might feel. Of course, we easily see this as being utterly stupid, because what men do learn from such an experience is the reality of how easily they can be accused, and just how devastating that accusation can be to their entire lives.

      Police who have the “opportunity” to experience a false allegation are uniquely positioned to do something positive with their newly acquired knowledge – spread the word, and take a fresh look at men who will end up being accused in the future.

      And, while The false rape Society has continued to appear rather “low key” amongst the background noise of the Internet, it seems to have been quite effective at encouraging some positive changes just by getting the word out, and disseminating the archive of examples of men being falsely accused – not insignificantly including not only the account of LEO’s accused, but also highlighting some rather significant f*ck-ups by LE in regards to seriously mishandling (false) reap allegations.

      If one take the time to first read through the older archives of the FRS, and then reads through the accounts of the past couple of years, what is readily evident is that innocent men are not being routinely arrested immediately upon being accused, their names are not be prematurely released to the media so often, and the recognition that many allegations now raise immediate “red flags” to LE is now the more typical news report. False rape allegations are now much more often uncovered quickly as investigators take a more suspicious look at women making rape allegations, and more and more, innocent men are being spared not only the harrowing experience of being prematurely arrested, but are also spared public exposure and all the attendant harms thereof for crimes they never committed.

      There is, of course, no way to definitely prove that the emergence of the FRS had anything to do with the apparent turn-around in LE’s handling and approach to rape allegations; but, surely, that the rhetoric of the FRS is now showing up more and more both in news accounts and in the public comments on news stories, IMHO clearly points to it being more than a mere coincidence.

      As Johnycomelately notes of his colleague, LEO’s are still mortal men, who can and do face many of the same perils of injustice that other men face, and so can readily connect with the issues of the MRM. We just need to be ready to hand them a Red Pill when the situation is right.

  9. This slwener argues like a woman.

    No one said anything about cop-hating, that is his invention.
    Thanks for the strawman.

    Not much false DV action?Another lie,SAVE services reports over one million false DV allegations per year.

    My logical main points were (if this weener is interested in honest rebuttal)

    1.The LEO system saw that the new DV lawz were going to get a lot of cops out of the force,because once convicted of DV,you cannot have a firearm.
    So they set up a seperate system for themselves,were they have due process,unlike the ex-tra special ex-parte
    (no hearing star chamber) system.

    We all supposed to be equal under the law,we now have a caste system.

    Futhermore,prosecutors,cops and judges are most often immune to prosecution for acting in bad faith.

    We are no longer all equal under the law, address that weiner &prosecutor.

    Over time It’s been my perception that this could well be a backdoor drive to disarm as many males as possible also.

    Why push a man who is allegedly angry enough to warrant legal action?
    Why not mandate counseling and evaluation rather than knee-jerk dismantling of basic Constitutional Rights.

    Ex-parte means you don’t get a trial before your rights are taken.

    Cops,prosecutors,and judges NEVER get ex-parte actions against themselves,BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW ABOVE US LEGALLY.

    That’s not hate Mr. Wienber,that’s facts on the ground,and frankly I’m tired of your disseminating vitriol.

    I love my cop brothers, but I also dislike injustice.

    Turning a blind eye via the sort of cognitive dissonance
    and emotion that Mr. weener has, it’s a form of insanity most common in women. (illogical)

    The rad-fems will keep pushing for more misandrist lawz
    they train for battle in the liberal schools.

    It’s time to put s top to this madness.
    I know,the $$ are just too tempting,right?

    • ”Ex-parte means you don’t get a trial before your rights are taken.”

      One thing that keeps hurting the overall image of the MRM is when individuals who have little knowledge of what they are talking about, make a loud and public display of their ignorance of a subject. (hint – just Google “Ex parte – it is used to refer to legal dealings which fail to include all relevant parties.)

      There are plenty of real issue to be addressed without the need to make shit up – especially shit that can be so easily refuted with a simple internet search. It ends up making serious MRM sites look like a bunch of rubes.

      And, there’s this:

      ” Not much false DV action?Another lie,SAVE services reports over one million false DV allegations per year.”

      Citation please.

      Well, never mind, I know you cannot provide one.

      Let me point out some (what will be for you) incontinent truths.

      According to the US DOJ’s Uniform Crime Report for 2010 (most recent year available), the total for all reports of for all arrests made for Aggravated assaults (of which DV assaults would only be a portion of the total) was only 408,488 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl29.xls)

      Of course, this doesn’t line up with SAVE’s estimated number of 700,000 falsely arrested for DV assaults (http://www.saveservices.org/dvlp/campaigns/false-allegations-awareness-month/false-accusations-of-domestic-violence-by-the-numbers/)

      And even SAVE’s number comes from them making an estimation based on the total number of reported incidents of DV (106,962 in 2000, from http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Justice-Denied-DV-Arrest-Policies, page 10) and making an “adjustments” to arrive at just over 1 million estimated DV arrests per year, of which they assume 70% to be false. Their particular methodology seems to rely on multiple assumption which they do not document. (Really 1 in every 150 men in the US arrested on DV charges every year? That doesn’t seem realistic.)

      But, even if we use SAVE’s numbers, the fact remains that 700,000 is less than one million. Seriously, just ask anyone you might know who can do simple math.

      And, of the 13,120,947 total arrests made by all LE in 2010 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl29.xls), even SAVE’s estimate would be that false DV arrests amount to 5.3% of all arrests.

      I certainly wouldn’t argue that that number isn’t quite significant – but it does go to demonstrate my point that it is but a fraction of all that LE has to deal with.

      … address that weiner &prosecutor.”

      Oh nice, name-calling and feminist style-shaming neat combined into one poorly constructed sentence.

      And you say I argue like a woman?

      The reality is that whenever a cop is accused, he will be subject to a much more thorough investigation than will a typical citizen, and will face greater potential consequences because of it. This is why cops are a prime “field” for possible recruitment – at least in terms of sympathies for men’s issues.

      Yes, I agree that too many cops are currently not doing their part to ensure that men are afforded equal protection, get their due presumption of innocence, and get a full and fair hearing.

      Yet, it is hardly all of them, and more than likely less than half who are doing so. And most of them due to ignorance (of the realities of female proclivities and lying) and/or fear that they have no backing to decline certain arrests. Which would not seem to justify declaring them all to be enemies of men by any stretch. More like a lot of Blue Pill addicted men who need our help to switch to the Red Pill.

  10. I suggest you get off the cops backs, and look to the source of the problem, up in Washington DC.
    (District of Criminals)

    The billion dollar SG industry is running out of strawmen
    ‘crimes” to incarcerate men,soon the need for more $$ will result in changes in the law,such as seen in the collegee,
    “Preponderance of evidence,” Rather than presumed guilty, oops- I mean innocent.

    Waking up to the truth of matter also involves not molly coddling those making a profit off of other people needless and unjust pain.(weener)

    • “I suggest you get off the cops backs, and look to the source of the problem, up in Washington DC.”

      Which, oddly enough, is exactly what i would say. The real issue isn’t with individual cops, even those who fail to properly serve men, but rather comes as a result of top-down laws which they are expected to enforce.

      Now, explain to me why it wouldn’t be more useful to try to educate individual (male) cops and open up their eyes to the misandry, so that they will be more inclined to give deserving men a much needed “break”; rather than just declare all of LE and the criminal justice system to be de facto enemies of men (which might even encourage them to be less understanding towards men).

      Is the goal of the MRM to help (individual) men, and help to secure their rights? Or, is it just to spout off hateful rants as to why an over-whelming majority of the populace needs to be considered to be our enemies?

      • Yes, you would think the MRM is about men securing their rights, but some guys are more interested in raging on the internet alienating the majority of men in the process than actual solutions to the problem of feminism.

  11. Another point:
    From what I saw, the majority of women get free legal counsel and the men pay big time.How is that equal access to the courts?

    Also, I’ve seen police depts and court clerks (females) deliberately botch and fail to perform for the male side,whilst the papers for the female side come pre-filled out. (Even in locations were that is against “the law.”

    The types of policies and procedures are even worse than the “administrative law” where the judge only allows what he wants to hear in his courtroom, and after his VAWA training,that’s the female side.

    How much slush money does it take to buy a conscience?
    Apparently not much,and all the time.A big shout-out thank you to all the up-standing judges who didn’t allow federal dollars to pervert their local court system.

    (What? none of them?)

  12. Well you have a convenient blind eye to the truth my friend.

    1.False DV allegation does not = arrest.
    The way this scam works is they send a nice fellow in blue to serve the papers and then you must request a court appearance to prove yourself innocent.
    BECAUSE THEY JUST TOOK YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS

    This is the ex-parte process that does not happen to police, this is the deal that was hammered out when they wrote the VAWA lawz.

    The same source that cites the dominant aggressor rules cites the process for cops.
    Try looking into the article on the Internal Chiefs of Police site for YOUR citation.

    You never did argue my caste system I suppose you &CO. believe only police and military should own firearms too?

    Why not, you’ve already establish we have no right to privacy nor due process,may as well go for the gusto?

    By the way, I don’t care if you squeal my Ip addy to your fibbie friends.I know your type.I still have the right to speak my mind, as much as you dislike that.

    • ”Well you have a convenient blind eye to the truth my friend.”
      Now, how weird is that? You employ gratuitous use of name-calling in place of substantive argument, then you all me “friend”?

      ”1.False DV allegation does not = arrest.
      The way this scam works is they send a nice fellow in blue to serve the papers and then you must request a court appearance to prove yourself innocent.
      BECAUSE THEY JUST TOOK YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS”

      Yes, I am quite aware that a false DV allegation does not require that an arrest occur. It was YOU who cited SAVE – and they give an estimate of arrests due to false DV claims. If you mean to include ALL false DV claims, why cite a source for the number of arrests?

      Of course, most DV call-outs, especially those with no evidence of any actual injuries will result in a summons being issued, which will require a man who is being falsely accused of DV to appear in court – thus, by the very definition of the term, it will NOT be an Ex Parte action, unless he chooses not to appear.

      He is not there to prove his innocence – he is not even given an opportunity to do so. He is there to here the charges against him (in theory), but the whole situation is simple a setup for the women to get an order of protection from the court. No evidence of any actual wrong doing is required for this. She need only report that she is afraid of him.

      And, in 9 cases out of 10, that is the end of the interaction with the criminal justice system. She got the order of protection she wanted to take to the family court, and she is unlikely to even cooperate with prosecutors after that. the vast majority of DV complaints files through police are declined for prosecution. The only cases that are even considered are those with tangible evidence of bodily injury or credible threats of violence (witnessed by others).

      Yes, the man is denied is rights, and is treated as completely unequal. But he has been Parte to it all.

      But, there are some actual Ex Parte false DV allegations that are made, resulting in men losing their rights. Many women simply go before a Family Court judge and claim that they’ve become afraid of the husband they initiated divorce proceedings against. They can get an order of protection with the man even knowing. That is what is meant by Ex Parte.

      ”This is the ex-parte process that does not happen to police, this is the deal that was hammered out when they wrote the VAWA lawz.”
      It’s not Ex Parte, and frankly, it does happen to cops all the time. In fact, they are held to an even higher standard. A cops wife making any accusation against him ensures that not only will he be tossed from his home and kept away via court order, he will also face mandatory suspension from his duties (and his pay)

      The same source that cites the dominant aggressor rules cites the process for cops.

      Try looking into the article on the Internal Chiefs of Police site for YOUR citation.”

      Where is this “Internal Chiefs of Police site”. I searched for it, and got all sorts of other stuff, but not that site. And, why not cite the exact source, rather than some nebulous reference to a site (which doesn’t seem to exist).

      ”You never did argue my caste system I suppose you &CO. believe only police and military should own firearms too?”

      You suppose a caste system exists. Cops who’ve run afoul of their wives in divorce actions will tell an entirely different story. There are a lot of ex-cops forced out due to the fact that they could no longer carry a gun. How did that happen if there really is this imagined caste system to protect them?

      And, as for myself, not only do I believe that a well armed populace is a necessary deterrent to tyranny, I’m a gun owner and NRA member.
      ”Why not, you’ve already establish we have no right to privacy nor due process,may as well go for the gusto?”

      I’ve done what now??? Where did I do this? Maybe you could explain what you mean by this seeming nonsense?

      ”By the way, I don’t care if you squeal my Ip addy to your fibbie friends.I know your type.I still have the right to speak my mind, as much as you dislike that.”

      Apparently you know nothing about me. You just presume that you do. And, I’ll bet you are too dishonest to admit it.

      Not only do I have no way of knowing what you IP is, even if I did, I would not try to have anything done to you. I’ve never asked for anyone to be banned from any site. You can post whatever you want. And I’ll respond if I see fit to do so.

      Any other dishonest claims you’d care to make about me?

  13. I’m not the first person to try to burst your pre-conceived notions of how the judicial system really works these days.

    I’ve seen folks write and say-Oh the judge did not allow this, or the judge did not allow that-and your reply is always the same:”well that is not right, it’ so SIMPLE a legal aid scholar could take your case for free and reverse…on appeal.”

    What you are not getting is this:
    1.The rule of law as you know it does not apply in administrative court.
    2.Policies and procedures hinder and block due legal process(if it’s allowed-see above)
    3.Ex-parte is the most often abused law,because it so so simple,so devastating,and often the first strike in a divorce to take the house and kids.(he abused me)(I’m afraid)

    Over HALF of the ex-parte cases in one country in Michigan-Wayne co.,were overturned.Note only those who appeal can overturn.so those with no funds nor compelling interest(already lost civil rights-felons) do not appeal-hence the false accusation rate is more than %50.(for that area)

    Of course LEO officials fail to note those stats that look bad for them.(hide controversial info)
    But the man on the street knows,because all his friends have been worked over.

    This is where your disconnect meets my reality.I don’t need to find stats to prove my case.
    Everyone knows liars figure and figures lie.Who needs buckets of stats to disprove common knowledge?
    Those with an agenda.
    That is exactly what I had hoped you were not,my friend.

    • ”What you are not getting is this:
      1.The rule of law as you know it does not apply in administrative court.”

      Administrative Courts (Courts Of Appeal) exist to review if the rules of law were followed appropriately. The one and only time I ever suggested that a law student could handle an appeal was one instance in which the person suggested such an obvious mistake by a judge in not allowing pertinent testimony that the grounds for appeal were plainly obvious, yet the writer seemed to despair that nothing could be done. My comment was to reassure him that a reversal would be quite likely. Criminal Court judges get reversed fairly regularly, and many new trials are ordered.

      What you seem to be claiming would seem to be entirely without foundation.

      ” 3.Ex-parte is the most often abused law…”

      Ex Parte is not a law. Seriously, look it up. I describes legal proceedings in the absence of a concerned party (or that party’s legal representation). Yes, many Family Court protective orders are issued via ExParte action, with no notice provided to the man that his wife is petitioning the court for that order. But, if any Criminal Court actions occur Ex Parte it is a serious infraction of the rules, and will not only be grounds for appeal, but any lawyers or judges who would act in that manner face some serious consequences for doing so.

      And, you even admit that Ex Parte actions get over-turned regularly.

      And, frankly, I know full well that a significant portion of DV claims are false. I even noted this in the comment that PMAFT quoted. I would suspect that SAVE’s estimate of 70% is probably fairly close.

      But, this has NOTHING to do with LEO’s at all. They simply respond to DV calls, either making an arrest if there is evidence of physical violence (which, of course, might be staged, but cops don’t use crystal balls), or issuing a summons if a woman insists on it. Perhaps they should refuse to do even that in many cases, but, again, they have no crystal balls, and cannot know every detail of every situation the instant the roll up on the scene. That’s where the rely on official policy to guide what course of action they will take.

      Yet, earlier, you seemed to decree that this alone was reason enough to declare all of LE enemies of men, refuting PMAFT’s suggestion that we ought to be trying to educate and convert them, rather than declare war on them.

      ” This is where your disconnect meets my reality”

      My disconnect?

      You make arguments about things I’ve never even mentioned herein (and, in fact, have argued myself in numerous instances).

      My “case”, if you will, is that individual LEO’s are not the ones to blame for the dysfunction in the system as it regards injustices served upon men especially as it entails false DV accusations. And, that not only are LEO’s not the ones ultimately to blame, but also that individual LEO’s will do far more than just make DV arrests. Thus, I would argue that even the fact that some LEO’s may not always to the right thing vis-a-vis men who are accused, that this alone does not seem to justify declaring all of them enemies of men.

      I have no agenda to further any misandry nor misandric laws. Others who know me from this and other forums will easily recognize this by comments I’ve made over the long run. It is you who have made a rather uniformed judgment of me based on (relatively) very little; and who seems to misunderstand a number of things – including what Ex Parte means.

      I believe that the aims of the MRM are not well served by repeating mistaken ideas. If we keep posting nonsense which can very easily be refuted, it makes all our positions appear weaker. There is an abundance of demonstrable facts, which can be documented, which we would be better advised to argue

  14. Wow you blew enough hot air to lift a balloon.I bet you are in the system to get obtain such lofty disseminating from the original argument.

    Let me try to get a rebuttal in,hopefully I can cover it all.
    1.You referred to me as “weird” as an opener? How very lame.
    Shaming language is so yesterday.It’s no more weird to call you friend that it is when the cops call me “gentleman” and make it sound filthy.
    What the heck was that part where you claimed I said cops were the enemy of all mankind? You plain pulled that out of your read end.
    Try not putting words in my mouth for me,friend.

    Now onto a hopefully more logical rebuttal.
    Alright, I am having to scroll up to see your every concern,the next paragraph after the name calling,we have your claim that DV arrests are in fact much more than what I claimed, quite a reversal from your earlier claim that Dv arrests where so minimal as to not matter.
    Thank you, you make it easy for me.

    Next up is your claim;
    “Of course, most DV call-outs, especially those with no evidence of any actual injuries will result in a summons being issued, which will require a man who is being falsely accused of DV to appear in court – thus, by the very definition of the term, it will NOT be an Ex Parte action, unless he chooses not to appear.”

    That is a negative sir:the PPO’s and ex-parte papers are courtless by definition.The man is not required to appear at all, simply to admit guilt by default, or appeal his loss of civil rights and entry into the LEIN system.

    Only police are required to have a hearing-that is not ex-parte-by definition.You’re still not getting it are you?
    The source was the International Chiefs of Police site, pardon my misspelling.

    “He is not there to prove his innocence – he is not even given an opportunity to do so. He is there to here the charges against him (in theory), but the whole situation is simple a setup for the women to get an order of protection from the court”
    Again a negative sir:
    He is there to prove his innocence so he can get the already given PPO and loss of civil rights OFF of him.The woman ALREADY has her court order-that’s why it’s CALLED ex-parte.

    “Yes, the man is denied is rights, and is treated as completely unequal. But he has been Parte to it all.”
    Negative sir:
    His rights were denied before the court hearing,he is only a party to getting them back/action reversed.
    I was going to post my firearm ownership warning letter
    that I got before I ever set foot in the courtroom, but I may not have the space to do that right off.Besides,you got me chasing your rainbows.

    “But, there are some actual Ex Parte false DV allegations that are made, resulting in men losing their rights. Many women simply go before a Family Court judge and claim that they’ve become afraid of the husband they initiated divorce proceedings against. They can get an order of protection with the man even knowing. That is what is meant by Ex Parte.”
    Here you agree with what I’ve said, after denying it,then you deny it again in the next paragraph-Did you have two people writing your response?
    No point in posting the next paragraph,you turned right around and contradicted yourself again.

    “You suppose a caste system exists. Cops who’ve run afoul of their wives in divorce actions will tell an entirely different story. There are a lot of ex-cops forced out due to the fact that they could no longer carry a gun. How did that happen if there really is this imagined caste system to protect them?”
    The system set-up for cops actually getting a hearing before the loss of civil rights is the one you falsely pre-suppose for everyone. If a cops loses his right to carry it is after a conviction, not upon accusation.Are you so dense not to see the difference?

    Next up is that you’re a proud gun-owner.Good for you.
    You could lose that-ex-parte.(no hearing)
    Upon request I will post my firearm warning letter driven by an ex-parte PPO court order.(proving my point)

    Well other than to express outrage once again at the false cop hating accusation I will end this post and begin another to refute your next post in line.
    The only thing I’ve ever said about cops in this dialogue has been” I love my cop brothers but I dislike injustice.”
    If you keep alleging I’m a cop-hater- I am going to start alleging you are a sodomite.

  15. Alrighty then,this is the rebuttal to your (slwerner) post.
    The tone of this post is much better,no strawmen or shaming language.In turn a more polite posting from myself.
    You are indeed my friend, because we both seek justice for men,there is no need for negative language in a honest discourse and I do regret being pulled into the mud.

    Right off you’ve confused “administrative law” for an administrative court.
    No.Negative sir:
    What I am referring to is “judicial leeway” where a judge only allows into his court what he wants to hear,and what his VAWA training has conditioned him to allow.

    There were several points of law that automatically disallowed my personal PPO,the judge did not allow that “law” into his courtroom. There is nothing to be done about that,the only appeal would be to the same judge-good luck with that.

    Then came the criminal contempt of court charges,a criminal matter.Well I’ve got the cart before the horse,but in short,the criminal charges were dismissed because they were false and Proven False.(me paying a lawyer roughly 3 grand to prove my innocence.)
    Then came the prosecutors offer to pursue the PPO as
    a civil matter FREE OF CHARGE to my false accuser while still on taxpayer time. The charge of conflict of interest was Not Allowed by the judge.(big surprise)

    Ah I’m off track, back to the rebuttal.
    Ok your claim that ex-parte is not law.
    Yes sir: you are correct.Ex-parte is not a law,just a presumption of guilt sufficient enough to get an order sent to the State Police and entry into the LEIN system.
    Of course actual presumption of guilt would be unconstitutional,would it not?

    “I know full well that a significant portion of DV claims are false. I even noted this in the comment that PMAFT quoted. I would suspect that SAVE’s estimate of 70% is probably fairly close.”
    Well here we are agreeing,and of course you are then correct.;)

    “But, this has NOTHING to do with LEO’s at all”
    Yes sir: again you are correct.
    I love my cop brothers,but I dislike injustice, so I’m speaking of my experience with injustice.
    The cop that served me looked like my dad and I would have loved to offer to take him fishing rather than have him look at me with justified suspicion.When I told him this paper he served me with was unjust-what he said was this:
    “I have seen these things misused.”
    That was all he could say, and I have nothing against the man for doing his job.What I am saying is he would have had a court hearing FIRST-whereas I did not.

    “Yet, earlier, you seemed to decree that this alone was reason enough to declare all of LE enemies of men, refuting PMAFT’s suggestion that we ought to be trying to educate and convert them, rather than declare war on them”

    I never said any of that.
    That is pure fiction from the darker recesses of your mind and I am tired of that level of (lying.)

    Last up is the left handed implication that I inp0lied cops were themselves somehow responsible for the misandric lawz, I never said that either.
    What I did say, was that by virtue of having non-ex-parte due process,they are in less danger of frivolously losing their civil rights (gun ownership) and hence their livelihoods,and perhaps even marriages.
    That they set -up a separate system wheras cops could be free of the harassment and ordinary citizen must endure.
    The separate system I am referring to is the policy outlined in the ICOP site,that cops first see an in-house moderator-negotiator BEFORE any PPO can be order.(due process)

  16. “Here you agree with what I’ve said, after denying it,then you deny it again in the next paragraph”

    I never denied that PPO’s can be issued on an Ex Parte basis, only that if a man is arrest for DV (or even just issued a summons to appear before a judge), he will have to appear before a judge, and if during that appearance, a PPO’s is issued against him (as is quite common) then by the mere fact that he is in court, and is made aware that the PPO has been issued then it was NOT Ex Parte – he was physically present when it went down. Only if a woman requests that it be done <i.Ex Parte will he not be told that it is happening. But, women seeking Ex Parte actions requesting a PPO do so without having the man arrest and/or summoned to court. that’s the point of her requesting that it be done Ex Parte, so that he doesn’t know that it has been requested.

    You seem to think that Ex Parte means without giving him a chance to try to argue/defend against it?

    And, what is it exactly that protects a cop from his wife or girlfriend (or even just some women who knows his name) requesting a PPO be issued against him Ex Parte? I don’t see where any man enjoys any real protection against such an issuance of a PPO. If a woman decided to seek one, it’s pretty clear that it will be issued, no evidence of any violence, threat, nor even that there is even a relationship between her and the man is ever required. Nor, for that matter does she need to indicate that he is an LEO. She just gives his name and some other info (like birthday), says she’s afraid, and it’s done. That an given PD’s internal HR rules might allow him to be represented and have a hearing doesn’t have any bearing on what a court will chose to do. That LEO’s enjoy protections from vengeful women doesn’t seem to amount to much more than the “show” of a departmental hearing, which also seems to require that he prove his innocence. Any random guy not in LE doesn’t even have to inform his employer if a PPO is issued against him (unless it involves a fellow employee). I’m not sure why you believe that cops are somehow above it all?

    And, as to the cop-hating, that was in regards to ,ray, who has clearly stated his hatred for law enforcement. If I did somewhere (I’m not sure where, it appears my previous mention of cop-haters was in a post which specifically named ray) direct it at you personally, then I was in error to do so, and I apologize for doing so. I’ll also apologize if I failed to adequately distinguish between you and he in using that terminology.

    I took your original comment to indicate that you view LEO’s as willing allies of misandry who gladly act to perpetuate injustices upon men secure in the idea that they were not at such risk themselves; and that you were thus were against the idea of trying to include LEO’s as part of the MRM, a de facto exclusion of them, tantamount to seeing them as feminines of men’s rights and therefor of men.

    And, I’d add that nowhere did I ever argue that the part of police work that involved arresting men on DV charges should be seen as insignificant (in fact if you’d have bothered to read my comment at 12:22, you see that I specifically stated: “I certainly wouldn’t argue that that number isn’t quite significant…”. All I ever argued was that such actions against men represent only a fraction of the total of all police work, and thus, that it should not stand as the only measure as to whether or not we should seek to include LEO’s. And, I’ll stand on that position. That LEO’s do engage in helping to further misandry is more often out of ignorance of the misandry involved, or out of fear of reprisal should they refuse to do so. I don’t see either as grounds for disqualification, but rather as an indication that they need to be better educated. ray, and a few others I’ve heard from elsewhere have quite clearly made the point that they should be selectively punished for doing so, and have even suggested that they desire to persecute men.

    As you have more recently made a point of indicating that you do not share this position (or so I gather?), that I believed you to be in league with such individuals was my misunderstanding and my error. I apologize to you for that as well.

  17. “Right off you’ve confused “administrative law” for an administrative court.
    No.Negative sir:

    Um, you stated, “1.The rule of law as you know it does not apply in administrative court.” Since you said “administrative court”, I thought you meant “administrative court”. My bad.

    “Ok your claim that ex-parte is not law.
    Yes sir: you are correct.Ex-parte is not a law,just a presumption of guilt sufficient… “

    No. Ex Parte is legally defined as “Done by, for, or on the application of one party alone. An ex parte judicial proceeding is conducted for the benefit of only one party.”

    What this means is that legal proceeding are conducted without all concerned parties represented at teh proceedings – not that one party doesn’t get to argue their case.

    Obviously, since one party is excluded form the proceedings, any claim against them will be treated as accurate, and thus represents a de facto presumption of guilt – but that is an unavoidable result of the one parties exclusion.

    And while there exists, in arguably, that presumption of guilt, the term Ex parte still only means that person being accused wasn’t invited to the “party” (in his honor).

    And, I still don’t see how you conclude the cops aren’t any more vulnerable than anyone else to some woman requesting a PPO against him without him knowing about it?

    The working theory behind these requests is that the mere knowledge of an action being requested against him might incite a violent reaction from a man. And, when it’s a woman making the request, her supposed fear will be accepted as reason enough.

    Theoretically, a man could also request an Ex Parte hearing to request a PPO against a women; but I’d have to imagine that he’d be expected to fully document his rationale for the request.

  18. And what about the men in prison who administer “prison justice”? How can we recruit them to our cause?

  19. Ok, very good. We have our misunderstandings ironed out nicely.
    To the original topic,yeah I do think police should be included happily in the MRM,as they stand to benefit even more than the average man.

    It must be hard for Joe cop to realize those women he is putting himself on the line to protect are in a privileged
    position to falsely accuse him.

    Even harder to be helpless in the work situation, where female officers could be held to a lower physical and other training standards,this PC positioning could make a harmful weak spot in a critical situation.Yet the male officer cannot protest w/o the same baseless “hate” accusations thrown against him.

    Yes, absolutely appealing to cops to help change the law as written,and more importantly,as enforced should have been the fist order of the day for the MRM.

    They were first up to recognize the potential for injustice from these lawz and did find ways to shield themselves from all but the worst of them.They see the problem quite often.
    The less cognitive dissonance the officers have is important to their longevity and happiness in that career choice.

    I would not want to be a cop, could not do the job,do not envy nor dislike them.They area necessary part of society,and I would not like that society w/o them at all.

    The best overall course is for justice to be JUST,then the populace will be less resistant to enforcement,making the cops jobs much safer and easier.
    This whole dialogue has brought out some of that dissatisfaction from commentors,and does perpetuate the “us and them” perception that really harms both sides at the end of the day.

    The fact is the cops are of us,should be by us and for us.
    That’s best done with honorable laws that do not promote the breakup of the family unit for power and dollars.

    This whole breakdown of the nuclear family is the most dangerous thing can happen to a civilized society.
    Everyone gets reduced to the animal level.
    That is not good,not good at all.

    Shoe on the other foot:
    I can see why cops would be hesitant to speak out:
    they are under even more PC scrutiny then Joe sixpack.

    I can see why no man would speak out this subject at all:
    It seems dissent now=hate.
    Even if that dissent could lead to a saner,safer society.

    • “Ok, very good. We have our misunderstandings ironed out nicely.”

      I suppose that I was a bit too quick to jump the gun and think that you were like ray, who I know hates me, and always will; just as he hates Buck, an LEO who comments at Dalrock’s site. He’s made a point to indicate his ill-wishes for the both of us.

  20. “The separate system I am referring to is the policy outlined in the ICOP site,that cops first see an in-house moderator-negotiator BEFORE any PPO can be order.(due process)”

    [I would assume that ICOP is something other than “Islamic Crescent observation project”, “Islamic Center of Portland”, or “ICOP Digital Inc” – which is what Google seems to think I was looking for]

    How does this work if a woman doesn’t disclose to the court that the man she seeks a PPO against is an LEO.

    Seems to me it would be issued by the court, and would then only come up for a hearing once the LEO was made aware of the (standing) order, and notified his department of it.

    I can see where LE wouldn’t want female perps to be given PPO’s against cops investigating them. However, if it was his wife or girlfriend requesting it, I very much doubt that the PD would disallow it.

    And, at least in Colorado, if a woman calls other cops out on a DV call alleging that he assaulted her, he will be suspended pending being cleared of the allegation. That seems even less protection against a vengeful women than the average guy would get.

  21. when i criticised the snug and avaricious relationship between the U.S. Feminist State and the extremely lucrative, recession-free Law Enforcement Industry, and also criticised the pathological, hypocritical anti-male policies and activites of LE at every level, slwerner replied on another site that only “criminals” disagree with Law Enforcement

    pretty convenient conclusion, eh? disagree with me = you’re a criminal, need more mancages

    how is this different from our feminist rulers? disagree with me = you’re a misogynist criminal, need more mancages

    yet slwerner tells us he’s part of a “men’s movement”

    yeah . . . “moving” boys and men from freedom into your mancages, while you stuff your fat pockets with the bloodmoney

    then slwerner constructed endless strawmen, accusing me (with plausible deniablility of course) of being a cop-hater, etc etc

    all b/c he and his Prosecutor Wife are VERY comfy with their lifestyles, built on the suffering, rape, false imprisonment, and destroyed lives of millions of U.S. boys and men

    but so what, as long as Ms. and Mr. Slwerner have everything they need and want?

    and, hey, if anybody disagrees with Ms and Mr Slwerner why, they must be a Criminal

    what a convenient planet, eh?

    it’s bad enough that slwerner defends what is absolutely indefensible, the profitable and evil collusion between LE and the Matriarchy, but he (it) also stoops to strawman-accusations that only underline the ethical void in which LE has operated during the past 50 years of WomanJustice

    you who persecute the sons of this nation will answer for it, and all the cops and federal agents and servants of hillary will not save you from God’s judgement

    we’ll see how your strawman perform then

    looking forward to it v much my friend

    now go tell your boss oops wife what i said, slwerner, and see if the two of you can think up something new to accuse me of (cause you’re sure good at self-serving accusations in your Cuntrooms of Law)

  22. Great … Shouldve guessed PMAFT was gonna pull the nazi cops card …

    Lets get one thing straight shall we?

    Cops & the Legal System, is organised crime, theyre criminals

    There is NO such thing as a legal system, its a criminal & violent system, which violates & destroys more men & their families, in the millions for BILLIONS

    It’s a con, just like most of the society you live in.

    Of course PMAFT disagrees with the above, he thinks society is a coincidence, & theres no such thing as a facist, criminal dictatorship, which essentially destroys & enslaves men …

    Cops are part of this system …

    Basically Fuck the cops, they’re not a group of men, they’re hundreds of times worse then the criminals …

    ALL cops who follow criminal & illegal laws will always be criminals

    Cops are & always have been organised criminals, thugs & crooks with badges

    I really dont expect PMAFT to be realistic, Cops who follow & enforce legalised criminal laws, are criminals

    You really need to rethink this one PMAFT, so you want criminals & assholes who destroy families, essentially nazi’s to join the MRM?

    Men who destroy other men for a living, arent a group of men, theyre organised criminals, modern day nazi’s nothing more.

    Go look at some REAL cop forums, they’re rhetoric is pure facism & hatred for men like MRA’s & other activists.

    The police, ie corporate policy enforcers, are white knighting modern day nazi’s.

    Also even more importantly cops are a hundred times worse, then White Nationalists

    Why dont we call cops by their real names?

    Modern day nazi’s & facists, dont & never will fit in ANY activist group

    White knighting nazi’s become white knighting nazis for a reason

    But of course mainstream & traditionalist idiots, always love the corporations & governmental bodies who destroy their lives on a daily basis …

  23. Btw Dalrockss loaded with assholes like slwerner, empath & other ridiculous manginas …

    Zero sympathy for useful idiots … which essentially sums up cops & slwerner & his leo defending ass …

  24. Mixed feelings.

    On the one hand, yeah, LEOs could be sympathetic and, as men, naturally share our interests.

    OTOH, working for the gov’t is a shit job. I don’t mean it pays badly — quite the opposite. I mean it’s on roughly the same moral plane as making a living in organized crime, except that criminals are less likely to get self-righteous about their professions.

    Cops do what they’re told 99.9% of the time, just like everyone else. Except that a non-trivial portion of what cops are told to do is destructive bullshit. So not a lot of warm fuzzies towards the bronze.

    • If cops are doing the same thing as everyone else, then why treat them as something different?

      I don’t see how making more and more enemies among men is a workable strategy for the MRM. Too many guys in the manosphere think in terms of red pill and blue pill. To them, if you’re not a red pill then you’re a blue pill feminist. This is wrong. The reality is that most men are purple pills. They’re in the middle. They know something is wrong, but might not be able to figure it out exactly or they think they’re the only one who sees that something is wrong. The worst thing the MRM can do to purple pills is push them into the blue pill camp.

      • I don’t see how making more and more enemies among men is a workable strategy for the MRM.

        I’m not saying that cops are enemies of the MRM, I’m saying I don’t like cops — for a lot of reasons. I’d add that it’s foolishness to expect cops to do anything other than what they’re told to do, so I don’t see them as especially valuable allies.

        But if a cop wants to sign on the MRM, he’s welcome as far as I’m concerned.

  25. Slwerner, you have the patience of a saint, man.

    I dips me lid to you. 😀

    • Well, I think you are overestimating me, but thank you anyway.

      It’s not so much patience so much as it is simply seemingly having no ground on which to actually communicate with either ray or rmaxd.

      In their eyes, I am simply the enemy – primarily, or so it seems, because I do not agree with every last single thing they say (and in the case of ray, apparently because I has some money and worldly possessions.)

      In retrospect, although these two did post at Dalrock‘s quite a bit, I cannot say that I ever really understood what either of them stood for. But, apparently one litmus test for their version of the He Man Women Haters Club is that one hate everything about law enforcement. If you point out that arresting, prosecuting, and punishing men who kill other men, even for such trivialities as a “disrespectful” verbal exchange, is a worthy LE endeavor; is likely to be met with nothing more then their typical vitriol.

      How does one even attempt a balanced approach with individuals who seem to be so unbalanced in their views. And, the weird fact is that I even agree to some extent that there are some cops who are just bad people – rogues who hide or fabricate evidence, bullies who operate against their guidelines yet enjoy some protection by hiding behind the “Blue Line” and expecting their fellow LEO’s to cover them, radical man-hating feminists with decidedly anti-male agendas, and far too many lazy incompetents who should never be allowed to do police work. I’ve long held (and argued) that LE needs to have such misfits purged from their ranks.

      Yet, the simple fact that I can also distinguish between such “bad cops” and the many others who actually wish to fight crime (even if they sometimes fail to understand that they may be used as tools of gender-feminist design); brands me as an “asshole” & worse in their eyes.

      In the end, I can see no reason to try to engage with them any further. I’ll just let them call me names and hurl their typed out invectives at me, while letting their own words serve to demonstrate their true character for others to see. If they manage to convince some others that I am not worthy of calling myself a part of the MRM, so be it. They cannot stop me from seeing myself that way, or any other way I chose, and I will continue on as I have for some years now. I’m not going to cow-tow to their hate and venom. The very essence of the Manosphere involves some degree of MGTOW, even if that just means each man being free to chose what he believes, and what course he will take. It has never been about have all men goose-stepping to the tune of little wannabe Führers who will accept no dissent. Even if they do put double-wings on their Swastika’s (and yes, I do kow that the Swastika has a long history outside of 19th century German Nazism, all the way back to ancient Sanskrit – but it’s hard to see the red-ringed black-on-white circle design as anything other than homage to Hitler’s Nazi Flag).

  26. Ray, stop it. Slwerner is a solid member of the MRM

    who do you think you are? SuperMommy? the Goddess? the Censor-in-Chief? i must stop having opinions that disagree with your pals? or what, you’ll ban me? have me arrested by my Protectors and Servers?

    :O)

    Slwerner, Buck, and the rest of the predators on the sons of this nation have NOTHING to do with the MRM, and even less to do with my God

    when i dared to disagree with slwerner and his Prosecutor Wife over at dalrocks, slwerner promptly informed me that those who criticise LEs are just criminals anyway

    that you would support such facile character-assassination and plain bullying is very disappointing

    i’m sick to death of punk thugs like slwerner and i’m sick of the Gynogulag that he serves and protects

  27. “when i dared to disagree with slwerner and his Prosecutor Wife over at dalrocks, slwerner promptly informed me that those who criticise LEs are just criminals anyway”

    Apparently you have considerable difficulty in deciphering the English language.

    Here’s a link to the actual comment I posted:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/bargaining-in-the-shadow-of-the-law/#comment-32146

    Now, if you show me where you got the impression that I said that, maybe I can help you to work past your confusion.

  28. I do understand how a person like ray can be filled with vitriol.
    After being in the courts and having all pre conceptions of justice blown to the wind,it is most unsettling to come to the realization there is nowhere to go for legal and equitable relief.
    This whole presumption of guilt and lack of due process is anathema to the civilized mind and society,hence the lack of civility from those who’ve been Subject(ed) to it.

    My thought for today is I feel very sad for my cop brothers, whom I love, that they must participate in this travesty.
    But the monster has grabbed ahold of the reins far in advance of my local boys/bros.
    It’s the monster from above that makes policy,and drives fear into those who dissent,even cops.

    This destruction of the family unit will stop someday, when it costs more to implement than it receives back in lawyer/court funds.

    That day is quickly coming as more and more men refuse to marry.
    Men indeed are waking up to the scam, and refusing to play.

    Women will have to pick up the slack, and that;s when the worm will turn again.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
    It’s nothing personal-it’s just about the money.

    Take the money out of the equation and all of a sudden there is room for real justice.

    I am very curious as to what the next set of lawz will be to increase revenue now that men are getting wise to the whole DV and divorce scam.

    “love is a temple,love the higher love”

  29. My house. My rules. Show some respect and get your head out of your ass.
    Show some respect and get your head out of your ass.

    you little fucking coward, you’re just like the skanks you Serve and Protect, demanding that men “respect” you, Or Else

    Your House and Your Rules, eh?

    well i say ALL these houses belong to MY God, including your stupid little blog and your punky little ass, and anytime you think youve got what it takes there Mr. Tough Guy, we can hook up and you can have all you want, you pompous little bag of shit, anytime and anyplace

    • well i say ALL these houses belong to MY God, including your stupid little blog and your punky little ass, and anytime you think youve got what it takes there Mr. Tough Guy, we can hook up and you can have all you want, you pompous little bag of shit, anytime and anyplace

      I pay the bills for this blog, and I am legally responsible for it. Therefore I can do what I want with it. When you go to someone’s house, you show some respect and basic decency. Consider yourself banned.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: