Imagine being empowered by the state to threaten people with murderous violence over hurt feelings.
Or for pretty much any reason at all. Without having to worry much – if at all – about ever being held criminally responsible for such abuse.
To say that such a policy is dangerous is like saying there’s a slight problem in the Titanic’s hold, after it hit the iceberg. 
It is catastrophic – as great a threat to our liberties as the gushing-in seawater was to the souls aboard the doomed liner.
In this video, a man who flipped The Bird to an armed government worker finds himself in mortal peril because he hurt the AGW’s feelings. Not because any law was broken – much less any harm done to persons or property, the only moral justification for interfering with anyone’s liberty.
Nonetheless, the affronted AGW uses his government-issued car and his government-issued gun and the government-sanctioned threat of murderous violence to coerce compliance to “pull over” – a soft-sounding euphemism (like the “shared responsibility payment” under Obamacare) for something as hard as it gets: A government thug waylaying a peaceful human being, using all the just-enumerated threats, overt and implied, that he will be killed (ultimately) if he does not obey.
Some reading this will be taken aback at the language above – will consider the foregoing a hyperbolic statement. But it is a statement of fact. Had the man – who did nothing illegal – declined to obey the illegal orders of the AGW and attempted merely to leave and go about his business – asserted his right to liberty – he would certainly have found himself the object of murderous violence.
Murderous violence is implicit (and often, explicit) in every interaction one of us has with one of them.
We are quite literally at their mercy. Physically as well as legally. We are required to submit and obey. And if we do not – even when it is clear we’ve broken no law and that personal law is being enforced upon us – then they are legally empowered to resort use murderous violence and we are legally debarred from defending ourselves against it.
Thus, a power-tripping Praetorian in a government-issued costume, with a government-issued car and a government-issued pistol can – at his whim – “pull us over” or interrupt our travels when on foot – and we’re obliged to bend knee.
If we decline to “pull over” or continue waking . we invite a roadside or curbside execution. This is no exaggeration. It has happened, continues to happen – and will continue to happen, until enough of us have finally had enough.
This AGW was annoyed by The Bird – even though there is no statute prohibiting the giving of it, whether to an AGW or anyone else. It may not be nice to so gesture, but nice (or not) isn’t the issue.
Legality is. Also morality.
Well, they used to be.
At one time, within the orbit of living memory – it was both implicit and explicit that cops (this was before they morphed into AGWs) had to have a legally valid reason before they could use force, whether overt or implied, to defrock and citizens of his liberty. Cops were restrained by this generally accepted expectation – and citizens emboldened to assert their liberty – you haven’t got anything on me was the language used.
Not anymore. We live in fear because AGWs are a law unto themselves now. Deference and submission are expected, demanded – and enforced.
Non-consensual, illegal waylayings of the sort depicted above are now the routine drill for affronting the Authority of AGWs.And it routine because there are no consequences when an AGW is caught en flagrante abusing a citizen.
Abuse defined as enforcing personal law, as in the video above. Or, this one:
(News story here.)
It’s easy enough to understand, if you imagine someone not an AGW chasing down a person who flipped The Bird (or did some other thing they happened not to like) and used the implicit/explicit threat of murderous violence embodied in a visibly carried (whether holstered or not) firearm to waylay them and subject them to a harangue and a short-term kidnapping that lasted just as long as they felt like it, based on the duress they could impose because of the fact of the gun and the implied threat it might be used.
If a non-AGW id exactly what this AGW did, the non-AGW would be prosecuted (rightly) for multiple felonies – and the man would have had the right to attempt to escape and (if the psychopath pursued him) to defend himself.
But AGWs are different, special.
One hopes that in time they will no longer be so regarded – or so treated.