So an online acquaintance of mine posted a photo to his facebook wall this evening, captioned "SNITCHES...get stitches". It was one of those pictures done up in the style of the motivational poster you'd see on the walls of your high school guidance counselor's waiting room.
It was taken decades ago, I'm guessing in the 1970s due to the grainy black & white of the photo (as well as the body styling of the police car), and featured a small child talking to a cop in a patrol car parked on the curb. Meanwhile, on the other side of the street, there stands another child facing the car. He is concealing a pistol behind his back.
The photo is meant as humor, and the situation is likely harmless and innocent...one child waiting on the side of the street with a cap pistol, standing at "parade rest" with the toy gun behind his back, while his playmate speaks with a neighborhood cop about God knows what that may have been as simple as "How's your father? Is he coming over to the house to watch the Super Bowl?".
Given the current public image of police officers, as well as the greatly-publicized "Stop Snitching" campaign popular amongst a growing demographic of today's society, the photo takes on a whole new meaning with respect to its caption and social commentary.
In case you're wondering, this is the photo.
We all had a good laugh at the photo, but I did bring up a very serious question. If the resulting action against the target of such "snitching" would be police aggression (say, for instance, your neighbor rats you out because you have a reefer plant growing in the back yard and the cops come over and arrest you for it), it is generally understood that the act of snitching in and of itself is considered aggression because the snitch is reasonably aware of what he's doing and what the result will be.
Followers of the NAP, who do not necessarily follow the doctrine of defenseless non-violence, typically consider it proper to defend or retaliate against an aggressor in order to prevent aggression from occurring again. For instance, if someone breaks into your home, you are allowed to not only prevent it from happening, but also beat the burglar's ass to teach him a lesson. You were not the aggressor, you were aggressed upon.
If aggression by police would not exist without the participation of the snitch, is the snitch not guilty of aggression? If the snitch is guilty of aggression, is he not deserving of any retaliation based upon whatever actions may come of his interaction with the police?
Let me put it this way. The State has a law in place that makes it illegal to beat the shit out of a snitch, and it's almost on par with the punishment for beating the shit out of the cop. That should be a dead giveaway...