First, let me caveat this post by saying that I do not
advocate "killing cops", nor do I think such actions should be condoned or tolerated.
OK, with that out of the way and an admonishment (prior warning, if you will) against anyone misrepresenting anything that follows... Let's take a look (perhaps a "devil's advocate view") of this situation...
Well, it seems that prior to getting elected as a NH state representative (as a Republican), Mr. Alciere was apt to post to various news groups, chatrooms and bulletin boards. Some of those rantings have been published by the AP and many have suddenly become enraged because in one such typical rant, Mr. Alciere advocated that he was in favor of "killing cops when they cross the line
". (My emphasis added.)
So, a bunch of folks, including the NH GOP, want him to "voluntarily" resign. Seems those folks are all upset because there's no provision under NH law whereby they can recall a duly elected official because they disagree with that person's stated beliefs. Hmmmmm...
Now, as for all those folks who voted for him. If you vote for someone without knowing where they stand on fundamental issues and you then inadvertently elect that person to office to later find out that they don't believe what you thought they believe... 1) be more careful how you "spend" your vote, 2) make certain that you understand a candidate's positions before
you cast your vote, and 3) Welcome to the fun and entertaining world of politics!
Well fine. Mr. Alciere's comment is pretty inflammatory isn't it... well, isn't it? Or is it?
Listen folks, this guy has a certain talent for just, well, pi$$ing people off! I mean really
... right after the election he referred to his constituents as a bunch of "lamebrains"! Not the type of comment that is going to help one's future political aspirations, is it...
Some have made comments along the lines of "typical Republican". But look at the facts. Mr. Alciere ran as a Republican after running previously as both a Democrat and a Libertarian... neither
party wanted him and it has been reported that the Libertarians even told
him to leave!
Supposedly, he also wrote letters to the editor of local NH papers advocating violence against women, but unlike his internet rants, we have never seen any proof that those allegations are true or exactly what those letters said. Given that his anti-police writings seem to be available all over the place, let's stick with those. At least for the moment...
Those anti-police writings show the temper, frustrations, and indignity that many people vent when posting on an internet forum in what they feel is a psuedo-anonymous forum. If we take those writings in context, however, we find something else in common which all of his "killing cops" posts share... They're conditional
. That is, he advocates (regardless of the intemperate manner in which he may write) that everyone should exercise their rights of self-defense against police officers who are engaging in abusive behavior. (Racial harassment, excessive force, etc...) Now, I haven't read everything the man's ever written, far from it, but in the things I've looked at he has only advocated violence against police who have "crossed the line".
As nice and understanding as the people on these forums are, don't we all get a little, ahem, emotional over issues sometimes? I mean, if you put aside the emotionalism surrounding the stuff that's been put out by the AP, Fox News, CNN, etc., etc., is what this guy is saying really all that bad?
If it is, the NH Constitution is a pretty nasty document itself! Their article 10 of the NH Bill of Rights (FYI, it's entitled "Right of Revolution") says:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
It doesn't say you should go out and shoot a cop, but if you look at the NH provisions for the use of deadly force in self-defense, they clearly recognize a right to self-defense against any "unlawful" force. I've yet to find the exemption that says that citizens of the Granite State have to submit to Rodney King-style beatings if the perpetrator is wearing a police uniform!
There's plenty of the same type of provisions in other State Constitutions, and the U.S. Supreme Court has even upheld the right of self-defense against those who are assaulting you "under the color of law". In fact, contrary to the sentences and judgements handed down by the Judge in the case, all of the Branch Davidian survivors were found innocent of murdering Federal agents by reason of legitimate self-defense. (Some rather upset jurors have since spoken out that they convicted on the most innocuous charges with the expectation that the Judge would release the defendants for time served!)
So, maybe this guy is a real @$$hole... maybe not... but given this era of Amadou Diallo, LAPD & NYCPD scandals, and on and on, does anyone think that issuing a badge and a gun gives a cop the right to run rough-shod over the citizenry?!?
Mr. Alciere isn't really a concern in the NH legislature, he can only accomplish what the other members of the legislature agree with after all... What I really don't understand is why more hasn't been made about his alleged writings advocating violence against women?
Or anyone else
for that matter?!?
I mean, let's think about this for a second. Everyone is upset because he's supposedly anti-cop, but those folks are armed, fully capable of defending themselves, work in a profession that is prone to having people saying nasty things about their every action, and can resign to a different profession if they wish.
On the other hand, why hasn't a full investigation of these writings espousing violence against women been conducted? If those are true (and I've yet to see any evidence that they are), then: That's
the real outrage! That's
the real issue! AND That's
where (IMNSHO) the "investigative" journalists need to be focusing.
Now, Mr. Alciere has either sponsored or co-sponsored bills in NH which would:
1) Stop pro-choice parents from regaining custody of underage teenage runaways who have decided to take their pregnancy to term.
2) Repeal statutory school attendance.
3) Have the State provide computers and internet access along with parental control software to parents in order for children to download as much "unbiased" educational material as desired from the internet, in lieu of public schooling.
4) Repeal the drinking age restrictions.
5) To make drunk driving penalties harsher.
6) To study a change in the building safety laws into codes that are not as intricate to the zoning laws.
7) To repeal all drug laws... period.
8) To discontinue involuntary commitment to mental institution.
9) Co-sponsor of a measure regarding funeral processions.
He has maintained his belief that the citizenry should be able to stop the government and it's agents from violating our inaleinable rights and has spent his time so far focusing on these bills. If there is no concrete proof of these supposed misogynistic writings, it seems that his election to office is a non-issue. Perhaps next time, the people in his district of NH will be more careful to clearly punch out any dangling chads!
[This message has been edited by Panther (edited January 08, 2001).]