Goosegate:

An Investigation Investigated;

or,

What's the Matter with the Police?

James Duvall, M. A.
Big Bone, Kentucky
2012

Florence Police

Here is my answer to the people who have commented on my video on u-tube. I do not tell the whole story here. For that you must see my earlier blog posts. Here I only defend certain aspects of the case that have been commented on, some of them negatively.

Here is the major issue: Craig Burch, do you know how it makes children feel for the police to say they are going to take them away from their parents?

That is why I talked to you at all; and that was why I was not happy when I did. And that is why I made sure you did not get what you wanted. That kind of behavior should never be successful. Here are the rules of ethical engagement:

1. You may not threaten to take away people’s children.
2. You may not look in people’s windows, or violate their curtilage by snooping in their yards and outbuildings.
3. You must leave when you are asked to leave by the owner or resident of the building.
4. You shall refrain from saying nasty things, or getting your friends to do so, on the internet. That should get you a double penalty.

http://youtu.be/GMErocui0gA

My edited version of the Incident.
This is much closer to the real story.

I posted the video of our conversation almost immediately. There was a reason for this; it was because I did not want to be tempted to edit it to make myself look better, and Mr. Burch look worse. It is true I come off sounding like a mean dog in this video. However, you must recall I had already, as was my right, asked him to leave a number of times. Besides, he had played the lowest trick in his bag of dirty tricks. He threatened to call the Child Social Services Department. He was threatening to take our children into custody if we did not come out and tell him what he wanted to know. That is not only illegal, but is so unethical he should lose his job just for this. It won’t happen, however, for policemen do this all the time. It is time it was stopped for good.

You will hear me in the video saying that he cannot talk to my wife and for him to leave. How many times do I ask him to leave us alone? I say he needs to go back to Florence (his jurisdiction). I tell him to go away? Why was I so impervious when he started telling me about wildlife law? What did I mean saying: “You obviously don’t know who you are talking to.” He was spouting off to a Boone County Conservation Supervisor (myself) about Federally protected geese, when he apparently doesn’t know a duck from a goose, and didn’t even bother to find out what animal he was even talking about, or whether the report was true. My children know all about ducks and geese, and other wildlife. They were doing something that was ethically correct, in fact admirable, trying to protect endangered baby ducks; for this they get hounded and threatened by a policeman out for an easy assignment.

The video shows a policeman’s face. It does not show something else you would have seen if you looked out my window: Big Bone Creek and Gallatin County, Kentucky on the other side. That is what I meant about going to Gallatin County. We live on the banks of Big Bone Creek and my wife could have easily taken the rowboat and been in Gallatin County in a few minutes, or in Switzerland County, Indiana, for that matter. (No one has to stay here that doesn’t want to.) Here we have beavers, blue herons, Canada geese, and wild animals of many descriptions. A city cop, at least 15 miles out of his jurisdiction, and, it turns out, without the permission of his supervisor, has no right to come down here preaching Federal Wildlife Law to me. I didn’t mean I am such an important person, but that he simply didn’t know what he was talking about. He might have impressed some people with his blather; he did not impress me with anything except his ignorance of the subject — not to mention his lack of people skills.

Several comments by shocked persons have been sent to me saying : “You told a lie!” Shock, shock, and this from people who don’t know what they are, since they have never told one. (The implication is that some lies may be alright, but to a policeman!) But this is based on a false idea of truth; according to this view we must tell “the truth” no matter who it hurts (that is especially handy if it is someone other than ourselves). It is true that neo-pagan philosophers like Fichte and Kant taught that one must tell the truth under all circumstances, and would have been very shocked to hear such a lie; but great Christian theologians, such as John Milton, held that a lie to protect the innocent is not only right, but a duty.

This teaching comes from the Bible, for example, Jael (pronounced Ya-el) in the Old Testament became a heroine when she lied to one of the enemies of Israel. When the soldier ate her food and went to sleep she drove a tent peg through his head. She was protecting the people he would kill, and avenging those he had already killed. Nowhere in the Bible does it say we must tell the Taliban where our troops are positioned, and that we must never trick them. It is wise to trick an enemy to save life!

If that seems a little far out. Consider the case of Rahab, who told the police who were after some Israeli spies, that the spies had left the city about the time of the closing of the gates, when in fact they were hidden among some stalks on flax on her roof. For this she was praised, and received the ultimate reward, a place in the genealogy of Christ. It is likely that the spies would have been killed; but the police would argue that she was a criminal who had not co-operated in their “criminal investigations”. God did not agree with them and their city was destroyed.

There are many such cases. Milton, the author of Paradise Lost, the greatest poem in the English language, was also author of De Doctrina Christiana. He wrote in that book of divinity that if a madman knocked on his door breathing threats against innocent people, and asking for the sword he had left in Milton’s possession a short while earlier, that he, Milton, would certainly tell him that he had loaned it, or no longer had it in his possession. So am I to believe the great Christian theologians, or this internet pundit (probably Burch himself) with an ax to grind? Burch making comments under a false name is lying, according to his definition. He can make whatever comments he wants, but he need not expect me to publish them for him. All he has to do is sign up for a blog or website and publish comments to his heart’s content.

I am not a liar; which doesn't mean I have never told a lie; but this is not one of them.  I have no license to lie for my own gain; but I was protecting an innocent person. If this policeman had talked reasonably he would have found me the most reasonable person in the world; I usually am! I don’t know how much worse Mr. Burch might have talked to me if he had not realized I was setting up my computer to record him. Instead of being reasonable he chose to threaten my children, was looking in my windows, talking to my small children, and was belligerent to me, insisting that he had every right to talk to my wife. He claims, with no evidence, that she is a criminal. He has no right to talk to my wife. There is no such right for policemen; the police always have the advantage in these kinds of situations; and no one who is being “investigated” should ever talk to a policeman without a lawyer present.

I would very likely have given him all the information he needed if he had acted civilized or even civil; but, as things were, it was my duty to protect my wife from him. That meant getting rid of him, and I had no weapon but my tongue. I admit it sounded a bit sharp. However, it shouldn’t have taken so much talking to make him go away; the police are obliged by law to leave the premises the first time you ask them. These men have found that if they browbeat most people long enough they usually get what they want. I decided the instant he issued his illegal threat that he might get part of what he wanted, someone to come talk to him, but that he absolutely would not get what he was after. That needs to be the constant and inevitable result of his reprehensible and unethical approach.

I might add that the few people (apparently associated with Craig Burch) who have expressed the wish that my family have to pay a heavy fine will be very sorry to hear that as there was no crime (isn’t that a shame?) there will be no fine (that, to them, is even worse). The whole matter was dropped, as it should have been in the first place. The police supervisor who was concerned about the manager from Chick-fil-a turning in a false report was at least on the right track, though he should have been more concerned about his own worker’s illegal actions. This leads me to believe that he uses the same tactics himself, and possibly encourages his officers to use them also. These guys deserve to hear about such unethical actions.

Chick-fil-a, Florence

So far as Chick-fil-a goes. Some people have said I shouldn’t say anything about them because they are under fire for being against “civil unions”. It is admirable that they are against one wrong, but why can’t they say that their franchise manager-owner is wrong to protect the manager who filed false charges against my children? If they protect one wrongdoer I do not see they get any special reward for opposing others. I will speak out against the wrong they are protecting, and let God take care of the results.

Whatever the family who owns the franchise does nationally has nothing to do with the injustice of a local franchise owner. If anything they should oppose this with as much vigor as they do any other wrong. I think they probably would if they really knew the situation. As it is they are so rich and so far away they feel protected by all their good works, and don’t think they should concern themselves with the people hurt by their employees. This cuts hard against any stand they make for ethical concerns elsewhere.

Someone (predictably) tried to blame this on the Teaparty! What does this fall under in the Teaparty platform? Surely not Limited Government, or Fiscal Responsibility. (There are only three major principles.) I have a hard time seeing how it has anything to do with the third plank either: Free Enterprise. That makes me wonder if the Grass-roots program has been hijacked for a personal agenda. Police harassment has everything to do with limiting the government. It is also a waste of resources to overfund all of these police and sheriff departments so that they have so much time to waste on nonissues. Issues like a kid jaywalking on Fifth Street! (Compliments of Rabbi Erlich at Hebrew Union College.)

That leaves only free enterprise, and I think that enterprises that are responsible for injustice to families, or anyone else for that matter, should be boycotted, and if they don’t resolve the issue, then they can go the way of other non-competitive enterprises. Free enterprise takes responsibility for its own actions. That means owners are responsible for what their managers do, just as managers have primary responsibility for their employees.

A Conclusion in Favour of Liberty

The truth is that our police departments will use their usurped powers to hound and harass any who oppose “civil unions” before long; in fact it is already happening. As much as I oppose that, I think the issue of police harassment and violation of civil rights and legal procedure is much more of a danger to our rights now. Once the police can come in your house and search and demand anything they want we are all in trouble.

Aleksandr Solsenitsyn reported to the world that the Soviet police would come into your house in the middle of the night, wake you up, give you a few minutes to dress, refuse to allow you a belt to hold your pants up (a belt is a dangerous terrorist weapon!), and carry you away in a “Black Maria”. And what happened if you didn’t co-operate with these good police? You don’t want to know. But it is coming here if we let this state of things continue. You simply are not required to answer their questions, ever! You may talk to them if you want to; but if you don’t have a lawyer with you I would suggest you never talk to them, unless you have called them. You might be careful what you say even then. The pride and haughtiness of the police just “doing their job” is surely leading to a police state. We are obligated to oppose this however we can. I suggest the best way is to cut the budgets of police departments to the bone. Police are a necessary evil. The fewer of them the better for everyone, including the police.

James Duvall, M. A.Big Bone University: A Think Tank, Research Institute, & Public Policy CenterNec ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem.
Big Bone, Kentucky
31 July 2012