A Beating in Pittsburgh

A year after three cops beat an unarmed music student, they are still getting paid to do nothing.

A year ago this month, Jordan Miles, an 18-year-old music student at Pittsburgh's Creative and Performing Arts High School, was walking to his grandmother's home in the city's Homewood neighborhood when three undercover police officers in an unmarked white car decided he looked "suspicious." Officers Richard Ewing, Michael Saldutte, and David Sisak, all white, would later say in police reports that Miles, who is black, seemed to be "sneaking around" and had a bulky object protruding from his coat that appeared to be a gun. It turned out to be a bottle of Mountain Dew—which, curiously, was never taken into evidence.

Upon seeing the men heading toward him, Miles quite understandably ran. But after a few steps, he slipped and fell. The police officers say they identified themselves upon exiting their car. Miles says they said only, "Where's the money? Where's the gun? Where's the drugs?"—questions that could signal a robbery. Even if the three men had identified themselves as police officers, it isn't hard to see why Miles would run. Three white men jumped from an unmarked car and began running toward him. At night. Given what happened to Miles next, he would have been justified in fleeing even if he had known the three men were cops.

The three officers severely beat the unarmed viola player, who is five feet, five inches tall and weighs 150 pounds. They hit him with multiple punches to the face and a knee to the head. They also tore off a large clump of his hair. The end result was the picture you see here.

Once he was out of the hospital, Miles, an honors student with no prior criminal record, was arrested and charged with loitering, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest. The police claimed that earlier in the evening they had spoken with Monica Wooding, who lives in the neighborhood, and were responding to her complaint that Miles was loitering on her property without her permission. But Wooding later testified that she made no such complaint. In fact, she testified that she has known Miles, a friend of her son, for years.

Citing Wooding's testimony and the possibility of false statements in the police reports, Pennsylvania District Court Judge Oscar Petite Jr. dismissed the charges against Miles last March. Miles has since filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Ewing, Saldutte, Sisak, and the city of Pittsburgh. The three officers were initially taken off undercover duties, then suspended with pay pending an investigation. The city halted its investigation when the FBI announced it would also look into the case (although the city was not required to do so). The federal investigation is still open, but it does not seem to be making much progress. Last August, federal investigators reportedly told Miles' family that charges against the officers were unlikely, because it was their word against a teenager's. In theory, the investigation could drag on for five years, after which the statute of limitations for federal civil rights charges would bar prosecution.

Under its charter, Pittsburgh's Citizen Police Review Board is not allowed to look into the incident until all criminal investigations are completed. So while it took just a few hours to falsely charge Jordan Miles with assaulting three police officers, more than a year later federal and local officials still can't decide whether the officers who beat him should be charged, removed from the force, or, as the local police union recommends, praised for their heroism. Two of the three officers who beat Miles, Saldutte and Sisak, are accused of using excessive force in other civil rights lawsuits and complaints to the review board. One lawsuit says Saldutte beat a suspect so severely that he fractured his eye socket, dislodging his eyeball.

Meanwhile, the Pittsburgh City Paper reports, the three officers are not only collecting their salaries while on suspension but are also getting the overtime pay they likely would have received had they remained on duty, thanks to a generous contract the police union negotiated with the city. As of the end of 2010, according to the paper, the city had paid the officers a total of $233,882 for 11 months of not working.

This month it all got even stranger. The week of the anniversary of Miles' beating and arrest, someone put out a hoax press release under fake letterhead from the city's Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). The release said the union had changed its mind and was now calling for prosecution of Ewing, Saldutte, and Sisek. The local press quickly determined that the statement was fake, and the FOP was not amused. "This is just totally outrageous that this occurred," President Dan O'Hara told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "If we catch anyone with regard to this, it's going to be multiple felonies, and that will set the example in the future."

Felonies? The press release was not an attempt to make money off the organization's name, so it wasn't fraud. It was either a poorly executed satire or a clumsy attempt to protest the FOP's support of Ewing, Saldutte, and Sisek. Either way, it is speech that would almost certainly be protected by the First Amendment.

But sure enough, last week Pittsburgh police raided the offices of Dreaming Ant, a local DVD rental store, and seized computer equipment allegedly connected to the fake press release. A detective told the City Paper that the author could be charged with trademark counterfeiting and identity theft. The business announced on its website that it is temporarily closed.

That's some swift action. If the Pittsburgh police department was as aggressive in disciplining its own officers as it is in determining who made fun of the local police union, maybe it wouldn't still be dealing with the fallout from the actions of three cops who beat a kid over a bottle of Mountain Dew. As for Miles, he is attending Penn State, where he is studying crime scene investigation. He wants to become a cop.

Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    The cops are just a gang. Events like this just drive it home that much more.

  • Max||

    You're a fucking idiot.

  • ||

    Ironic coming from the idiot. People in glass idiot houses shouldn't throw stones, Edward.

  • hmm||

    I'll have you know I throw stones all the time. Even if it costs me a ton in new windows for my house!

  • ||

    glassmakers gots to make a living too.

  • ||

    Think of how much economic activity you create with your broken windows.

  • ||

    It's good for the economy.

  • Destrudo||

    It's sad that you have nothing to do but sit around and be a troll on a web site where everybody thinks you're just vicious, dumb, and angry . And you keep confirming it.

  • sarcasmic||

    He probably thinks he's witty.

  • ||

  • Joe R.||

    I LOL'd.

  • Destrudo||

    The only thing sadder, in fact, is Rather. And she appears to be suffering from legitimate mental illness based on that bizarro blog, obsessive attention seeking behaviour, and generally awkward off-kilter statements.

  • l0b0t||

    On the plus side, it was Rather's obsessive blogwhoring that finally motivated me to install and use INCIF.

  • Rrabbit||

    Talking to yourself, Max? Or to the mirror?

  • ||

    A gang with badges and a powerful backup.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Stay classy, Pittsburgh.

  • Virginia||

    Last August, federal investigators reportedly told Miles' family that charges against the officers were unlikely, because it was their word against a teenager's.

    Seems obvious to me... but probably not the way "federal investigators" expect.

  • ||

    It's probably connected to the rash of other violent crimes by 5'5" viola playing honour students with no criminal history.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    He wants to become a cop.

    So he can also beat innocent people with impunity?

  • sarcasmic||

    If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    If you join 'em, you can beat anyone you wish.

  • Realist||

    Very nice!

  • ||

    Great article Mr. Balko.

    It would be interesting to know the total # of U.S. police officers suspended, with pay, while investigations of accusations against them proceed.

    Similarly, how much $$ (cumulatively) are taxpayers paying to suspended police officers per day, week, month...

  • Virginia||

    No way, dude, Pittsburgh is totally flush with cash to burn on these walking liabilities.

    City pension crisis: Pittsburgh has less than a third of $1 billion in obligations for 8,000 active and retired municipal workers... The city pays more to retirees than it collects from workers: Through the first nine months of the year, Pittsburgh paid out $222.5 million, or $57 million more than collected. Its yearly contribution to pensions was about $60 million.

  • ||

    Last August, federal investigators reportedly told Miles' family that charges against the officers were unlikely, because it was their word against a teenager's.

    I don't understand this (well, I do, but you know what I mean).

    There is no dispute that Mr. Miles did not have a gun.

    There is no dispute that he was beaten by police officers. Whether he had a gun or not would be irrelevant to this claim; even if he had a gun, that would not justify the beating.

    Is the dispute over Mr. Miles resisted arrest? If so, that's the kind of thing we seat juries for. Juries sort out he said/he said "credibility" disputes all the time. I don't understand what is being investigated here.

    Take what you have to a grand jury (which can also hear about prior charges of brutality). If they indict, charge the officers and take it to a jury.

  • Wind Rider||

    it was their word against a teenager's

    Blatant bullshit alert - what about the third party that disputes their claim they were answering a loitering complaint?

    Nobody is holding these lazy-assed bureaucrat's unused freakin feet to the fire.

  • average police officer||

    Did that third party take an oath to uphold the law?

    I don't think so.

  • Mark||

    You see, right there... that's the problem. The word of a police officer is automatically given increased weight over that of ordinary citizens. Why? Because they took an oath to uphold the law?

    EVERYBODY WHO TESTIFIES AT A TRIAL TAKES AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW!

    A police officer's word deserves no more credit as fact than any one else's -- especially in cases where a lie serves to cover his/her ass...

  • average police officer||

    But I have no reason to lie.

    I'm an altruist. I'm not tainted by any motive like getting rich or anything like that. I'm above all that. I'm pure. I'm a public servant. My only motive is to selflessly serve the community.

    So how could I lie?

    I can't lie.

    I'm a policeman.

  • pud||

    You are Robocop!

  • Almanian||

    ACtually, that was one of Robocop's features - since he videdotaped, his "memory" could be submitted as evidence.

    Therefore the cops should LOVE videotape, right? Cause it would only implicate the ones doing wrong....

    Oh, wait...

  • ||

    THIS cop would love ot have a video camera in my car etc. most cops i work with support videotaping.

    it helps to protect the innocent, punish the guilty, etc. win/win

  • ||

    Until the cops are the guilty party, and then there's that blue something of something.

    Not saying you fall into the category; if you did, you'd probably be a bit more Maxi and less libertarian on this site. But there's no denying that as soon as the lights and cameras are turned upon the cops they have a problem with being scrutinized.

  • ||

    Many cops do love recordings. Recording of a properly administered interogation can be a very useful tool in court. Some police forces shun tape because they don't realize this. Then there is the use of video against police abuse.

  • ||

    The mob is always right?

  • ||

    You nailed it 100%. The large majority of criminal cases are one person's word against another's. People watch too much CSI and other shit like that and expect there to be blood, dna, prints, a video etc before prosecutors can charge anyone. As you point out, that's what juries are for--to decide who to believe.

    Of course if it is a private citizen being investigated, I don't think prosecutors ever hesitate to indict based on a cop's word against theirs.

  • hmm||

    Cops aren't persons. Therefore, cases like this are not like the majority of criminal cases. A quick review of the criminal cases against officers makes this abundantly clear.

  • omg||

    This isn't so much a "ball kick" as a "ball potato masher".

  • Ska||

    Scrote in the waffle iron.

  • ||

    Aaaah, the smell of burning pubes...

  • ||

    Actually, after reading so much Balko, I was pleasantly surprised that the kid lived.

  • copy chief anarch's telegraph||

    As for Miles, he is attending Penn State, where he is studying crime scene investigation. He wants to become a cop.

    RUSH INTERVIEW WITH MILES

  • ||

    What a country!!! Land of the free, home of the brave!

  • Max||

    Does Ron "they're all fleet-footed criminals" Paul know about this?

  • Max||

    ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!!!!!!!

  • Paul||

    If you don't get justice against police aggresssion in Seattle, you're not going to get it anywhere.

  • ||

    fwiw, i (and nearly every cop i work with) thought the birk shooting looked bad FROM THE BEGINNING.

    it seemed to be a bad shoot, and the inquest has only made that more clear

  • Amakudari||

    Under questioning by Ford, Birk said he originally decided to question Williams "due to his unusual behavior" and because he was carrying a knife and a piece of wood.

    Pretty sure that's called whittling, buddy.

  • ||

    Pittsburgh: America's most livable city. Indeed, as long as you're white and/or a cop.

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/.....ncome.html

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    That is different from every other city in America how exactly?

  • Paul||

    I would argue it is different in different cities, but police abuses still rarely get justice because in the end, even after you transcend the racial issues, cops are treated to lower standards than anyone else and as such, their beatings and shootings are almost always found justified no matter the color of the cop and the victim, and no matter how thin the jusstification.

  • sevo||

    "cops are treated to lower standards"

    Yep, they never shoot anyone; 'there was a discharge from the weapon'.
    You know, 'mistakes happened'.

  • Paul||

    I've noticed that when it comes to cops, guns DO kill people!

  • Trig||

    ^^Nice one.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "If we catch anyone with regard to this, it's going to be multiple felonies, and that will set the example in the future."

    Should read:

    "If we catch anyone with regard to this, it's been a whole year since these three cops have had the opportunity to beat anyone nearly to death and they're about due, maybe we'll let them get their jollies on this person and that will set the example in the future."

  • Mango Punch||

    Contracts should definetely have terms that force the remmittance of wages from 'paid leave' if the reason the person was put on leave ultimately results in their termination.

  • ||

    Shit like this is the only reason police hate being videotaped.

    Shit like this is also the biggest, though not the only, reason I think it should be illegal for the government to negotiate with or recognize public employee unions.

  • ||

    many police support videotaping, myself included. fwiw, the seattle officer who punched the girl interfering with the other girls arrest in seattle, was clearly helped by the videotape and it happens all the time. of course in incidents where videotape supports the cop, these don't make the media/outrage. we get (rightly so) outraged at injustice.

    i *wish* my agency had video cameras in every car. it helps the search for truth

  • cynical||

    On the other hand, where the videotape hurts the cop, it mysteriously disappears or gets edits.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Dunphy tapes you: It's states' evidence.

    You tape dunphy: 15 years in prison for you.

  • anarch||

    Where can we read defenders of the officers' actions? The effect is incomplete without that.

  • l0b0t||

    They seem to all be at Reason's Facebook thread. Check out this gem -

    "Martin Ogden
    This is the exception to the rule. That being said ,this seems to be a heinous incident of abuse of power.
    Take into consideration, as you denigrate and stereotype law officers, we live in a society where police officers get little respect for the job they do and are targets every day. If you at your job had to face the fact that your life is in danger daily, you might not always react in the best possible way.
    Police brutality is not rampant in America and that is an unfounded accusation.
    "

  • Mark||

    I hope somebody over there pointed out cops VOLUNTEER, COMPETE and GET PAID RATHER HANDSOMELY for the job they do. I hope somebody over there pointed out cops are (supposed to be) PROFESSIONALS who receive COSTLY TRAINING AND COUNSELING to learn the skills needed to handle the stress of a life-threatening job.

  • Almanian||

    But they're not "experts"! Dunphy told me so!

  • ||

    they are not "experts" at firearms (the vast majority) not because i told you so, but because it is a fact.

    feel free to provide evidence to refute this fact.

    which you haven't.

    i've testified as an expert in more than one area, but not firearms and i'm an instructor, with far more firearms skill and knowledge than the average cop

    the average cop shoots 50-100 rds a year once or twice a year at a static paper target and receives 40-80 hrs of training or so once in a police academy

    that doesn't make an expert

    that's a fact, not rhetoric.

  • ||

    If you're not an expert despite being a firearms instructor, and you claim to be more knowledgeable than the average cop, then why do we even give cops firearms to begin with? Let them walk the beat patrol with billy clubs like British police officers. They're obviously not trained enough to handle a gun in dangerous situations.

    The concealed weapons guy in the Tucson shooting who turned the corner and held fire has more poise in a dangerous situation than about 99.472% of cops would.

  • Cyto||

    I don't know about "most", but the show "Police Women of Broward County" had one of the protagonists take some other women officers to the range. It was quite obvious that only one of them had any business even attempting to fire a weapon.

    That being said, it is the gung-ho yahoos who see every movement by the public as a mortal threat that are a threat to shoot you. The "I can barely find the trigger" types are not much of a threat to actually shoot you.

  • Zeb||

    And the vast majority of them are never in a truly life threatening situation.

  • ||

    rubbish. and of course your evidence for this is what? baseless.

  • ||

    Actually dunphy, it is statistics provided by police that say it is safer, per capita, to be a police officer now then it has been since the crack epidemic of the 1980s.

    Unfortunately the hype about how dangerous the job and this world is (terrorism, drugs, gangs, etc.) has infected the police just like the rest of society.

    Look up the statistics and come back, if you haven't done that you have no room to poo-poo someone else's statement of fact.

    The statistics actually state that per capita, except for the statistical anomaly of the drug gang activity in the early 80s, it has gotten safer, year over year to be a cop since the 1930's, but the incidents of random police shootings and beatings of innocent victims continues to rise, along with highway robbery and illegal confiscation of property.

    It is easy enough to look up the FBI crime statistics and do a brief statistical analysis that shows 100% that the claim that it is more dangerous to be a cop now then any other time is rubbish. But at the same time the pay and overtime and benifits and cost fo equipment for the same cops is going up.

    For some reason a safer work environment for police = a need for automatic weapons, military vehicles and tactics. Go figure, state power chasing more state power, using BS arguments. Never saw that coming.

  • ||

    Is it just me, or is "suspended with pay" like the single most enviable employment status ever conceived?

  • Mango Punch||

    It's not just you.

  • average police officer||

    No, it sucks. I mean, when I'm suspended without pay I can't go around intimidating people, stealing their stuff, beating them up and locking them in a cage.

    It SUCKS!

    Seriously!

    What's the point in living if you can't go around making people miserable?

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    I've always presumed that if you're are possessed of a serious work ethic and enjoy your work and think your doing good on the job, then it'd get old after a while. Try talking to anyone whose made the mistake of retiring too early...

    Likewise, if you're innocent, it be no fun to have the cloud hanging over you (if you're guilty as sin too, but then I've no sympathy).

    But for all that there are worse things.

  • ||

    I've always presumed that if you're are possessed of a serious work ethic and enjoy your work and think your doing good on the job, then it'd get old after a while.

    Probably, although I'm nowhere close to any of those preconditions.

    The other point makes sense -- but I think the "punishment" is a country-club sentence for the truly guilty far more often than a scarlet letter for the innocent.

  • anarch||

    OT: Today's NYT headline: Bill Would Let 'Sexting' NJ Teens Avoid Charges made me think a) What kind of legislator has Bill Clinton become, and b) would that include roaming charges?

  • ChicagoSucks||

    I've never known a cop, and I've known plenty, that wasn't crooked as a coat hanger. I'm surprised that we even trust them to carry weapons. Let alone execute (literally) the state's business.

  • Anomalous||

    These Pittsburgh cops should be made to eat Pittsburgh platters.

  • Irresponsible Hater||

    Miles has since filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Ewing, Saldutte, Sisak

    I'm surprised Miles was able to get the cop's names. What about their right to privacy?

    BTW, though its author screwed up by not producing it anonymously, the fake press release seems like a great way to keep the press interested in the story.

  • FreeLibertine||

    the city had paid the officers a total of $233,882 for 11 months of not working

    Government thugs are always the biggest welfare queens.

  • Almanian||

    mistook a bottle of Mountain Dew in his coat for a gun

    I drink a LOT of Mountain Dew. And I have a Glock. The only thing remotely similar about a bottle of Mountain Dew and a Glock is that they're both made of plastic. Not even the same color.

    I thought the Sunday nut whack was setting us up for a bigger beating today. I was correct - thanks for the double tap, Radley.

    *groan*

  • hmm||

    Come on, they aren't experts when it comes to using or identifying firearms.

    Hell, I'm betting a simple Rorschach test would yield every blot looking like a gun or drugs.

  • Almanian||

    LOL! I forgot about "not an expert".

    dunnnnnnphy! oh dunnnnnnnphy!

  • Pip||

    Don't call that LYING pig cunt over here.

  • Almanian||

    dunphy, dunphy, DUNPHY!!!

    *HORROR AS DUNPHY APPEARS FROM THE MIRROR*

  • ||

    hey, at least the candyman was honest.

    you aren't if you keep ridiculing the fact that cops are not (on average or in general) firearms experts. they aren't.

    have you ever testified as an expert? i have . but not on firearms, and i know far more than the average cop, since i have received about 5 times as much firearms training (instructor) and far more range time as well

    again, show me evidence.

    you can't do that. you are like a petulant child clinging to your lie

  • ||

    I'm not an expert either but you know what? I can tell a gun from a bottle of Mountain Dew. And I don't believe that more than a few cops want videotaping, it's relatively cheap, it's easy to justify and it even lets politicians get a few more bribes. If cops wanted it it would be everywhere.

  • ||

    again, you can continue demonstrating your ignorance, but you have yet to produce any evidence that the average cop is considered an 'expert' in firearms

    not a scintilla. and you still don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong in making that claim.

    are you a 12 yr old on a keyboard or what?

  • ChicagoSucks||

    Well they're both phallic so I can see how three cops would dart at the opportunity to get at this kid's phallus.

  • Ska||

    Can't even post joke comments; this story is just so fucked up.

  • Almanian||

    What ska said. Fuck...

  • Gregory Smith||

    Enough with the cop bashing! These people risks their lives everyday yet you expect them to be perfect and not to screw up every once in a while? Give me a break. Maybe the cops should go on strike and let us deal with the gangs on my own. I have a gun, do you?

    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....-cool.html

  • hmm||

    Lots...

    And I would never presume I had the authority to deal with a "gang" until they infringed upon my rights or property.

    Not a bad blog whoring or troll. Definitely slightly better than Rather.

  • Ron||

    From the esteemed Mr Smith's linked blog:

    In Michigan, high tobacco taxes gave Arab terrorists the incentive to send trucks to South Carolina, buy cigarettes at really low taxes and sell them in the black market with a great profit margin.

    Arabs! Terrorists! Trucks! This blog has it all!

  • Brett L||

    Arab terrorists? Hell, this was the Bandit's line of work in the 70s! Are you tellin' me the Ay-rabs are better boot-leggers than good ole boys? Them's faghtin' words.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Well it's true! Are you so in love with the arabs that you can't stand the truth about them? Read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she'll tell you about the wonderful things Islam has done for her. Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to live like she does, facing death threats everyday.

  • Almanian||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

    dunphy, is that you?

  • ||

    It's the return of the unreconstructed paleotarian. He's basically a Dondero pastiche, but without the "back in my day we had to hand out LaRouche leaflets in ten feet of snow" crotchety fuckwad shtick.

  • ||

    GREGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  • jacob||

    Holy shit! I was just thinking (after reading his post on another board) this idiot reminds me of Dondero.

    Why do these folks even call themselves liberterians?

  • Gregory Smith||

    Not it is not. Who the hell is dunphy?

  • ||

    Your comrade-in-badgelicking. You two would get along fabulously.

  • Ska||

    I read that as bageldicking. I was going to correct you and say donutfucking sounded more appropriate.

    Glad I avoided doing something so embarrassing.

  • Max||

    I like the firmness the bagel provides.

  • hmm||

    but donuts often have icing.

  • Pip||

    As will the bagel, in time.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Yeah well, I'm sure you'd get along real well with Barrack Obama.

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

  • Almanian||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    You are funnier than Vietnamese twins, Gergory Dunphy! Please come back again sometime!

  • ||

    Siamese?

  • ||

    don't compare me to this person, because i clearly have very different viewpoints. i realize your 2nd grade level reading comprehension makes that difficult for you to grok.

    nowhere have i or would i defend the cops in this case.

  • ||

    um, no

    i lick no badge, and i certainly would not, have not defended the cops in this case.

    the difference between me and people like hmmm, is i make evidence based posts and i don't lie. i can also admit when i am wrong, which he cannot

    i would never defend the cops in this case. i would certainly like to see more information on this case then just balko's analysis, but ime balko is pretty fair and evenhanded in assessing case facts and i give him the benefit of the doubt.

  • hmm||

    Still has two m's. I'm starting to think I have myself a stalker...

  • ||

    which is better? responding to your inane, lying claims? (what i do) or what you do - constantly making false claims about me when you are not defending your stupid belief that cops are (in general) firearms experts?

    i can deal with your ignorance, it's your dishonesty that's annoying.

  • Pip||

    He's a LYING pig cunt. Claims he has Never -- Repeat NEVER -- Seen a cop break the law.

  • T||

    He blinks a lot, Pip. It's congenital, so don't be mean.

  • ||

    i'll give it a .1 on the troll-o-meter, pip. you can do better

  • Zeb||

    Even Dunphy has a more nuanced view on cop behavior.

  • ||

    no, because *i* don't defend cops who appear to have done the wrong thing, as in this case.

    i do ridicule morons who think the average cop is a firearms expert, as "hmmm" and other resident morons keep claiming sans evidence.

  • hmm||

    Hmm has two m's moron.

  • ||

    great, i can't properly spell the name of a liar. fair enuf.

  • ||

    Nobody expects cops to be perfect. The subway shooting in Oakland is a good example. But, this is nothing more than bullying and bad police work. They should held accountable.

    They deserve credit for what they do, but they're paid quite well for it. Let's not go overboard. I hardly see them as my heroes for this type of bullshit. This is nothing more than bullying.

  • Gregory Smith||

    So you don't think it's heroic to go into the worst neighborhoods, enter homes with lots of rats and roaches, deal with the scum of society, talk to people who hate you just because your white. That's not heroic? Tell you what, the next time there's a Rodney King riot, don't even bother calling the cops, just run like hell or stand your ground, see if it's so easy to be a hero.

  • ||

    There wouldn't have been a Rodney King riot if the cops hadn't beaten him in the first place, you grade-A nimrod.

    Please tell me this is top shelf trolling and not someone actually this stupid.

  • Gregory Smith||

    And Rodney King would not have been beaten if he had stopped when he was supposed to. But hey, if you can't hold the blacks accountable for their own behavior don't expect me to blame the cops for beating Rodney King. I mean, we can play this blame game all day long.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHA. Oh wow, so because Rodney King didn't listen to the police, he deserves to be beaten AND the cops shouldn't be held accountable for breaking the law? You are just TOO retarded.

  • Rock Action ||

    Wow. You'd buy the bridge if someone in a police uniform sold it to you.

  • Zeb||

    "The blacks"? Really? When is the secret meeting where they decide how they will behave?

    It is pretty easy to tell when it is OK for the cops to beat the shit out of someone. It never is. There is never any occasion where beating a suspect to a bloody pulp is in any way necessary or appropriate and anyone who defends such behavior is scum.

  • ||

    "So you don't think it's heroic to go into the worst neighborhoods, enter homes with lots of rats and roaches, deal with the scum of society, talk to people who hate you just because your white. That's not heroic?"

    No. It's not heroic, when you kill unarmed people posing no threat to you.

    Cops beating or killing people that pose no threat do it because a) they enjoy it and know there will be no recourse or b) because they shit their pants when faced with conflict and lose their heads over a mountain dew bottle.

    Example a): not a hero.
    Example b): not a hero.

  • Edwin||

    You're fucking sick in the head if you really believe cops do their jobs because they enjoy violence

    There's no way you can truly believe that. You're deliberately taking up extremism just to justify your world view.
    Stop it. Grow up. The world has it's problems but the solution isn't to be a sicko.

  • ||

    "No. It's not heroic, when you kill unarmed people posing no threat to you."

    I personally know a cop that enjoys every minute of brutalizing others.

    You must not get out much these days.

  • ||

    Right Edwin, we're the sickos, not the cops that enjoy torturing and killing people.

  • Apogee||

    Of course you're right. It's impossible that a position of authority could potentially draw individuals seeking authoritarian power over others - including some who might abuse such power.

    The real problem isn't the rogue cops (you'll always have some of those), it's the refusal of those tasked with managing LE organizations to deal with the abuse of the authority.

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    The solution is to not give the sickos badges, guns, and a legal blanket under which they may hide from justice. Breaking their filthy union would be a step in the right direction. When a normal person fucks up this bad at their job they are fired at least.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    But hey, if you can't hold the blacks accountable for their own behavior

    What exactly did King do that merited being struck 56 times with police batons?

  • sarcasmic||

    Ah yes, the Rodney King riot.

    Wasn't that the riot that happened in response to some cops being found not guilty for beating someone nearly to death, despite being caught on video?

    Yeah, real heroes they are.

    Yup.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Well, whites didn't riot when OJ was found not guilty. Of course, it would be racist to expect blacks to act like white people, yeah, it's the liberals who think like this that are keeping them down.

    GOD KILL THE QUEEN: ENGLAND IS THE MOST VIOLENT COUNTRY IN EUROPE.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....olent.html

  • Pip||

    "talk to people who hate you just because your (sic) white."

    You know, it is funny how only white people can become cops.

  • jacob||

    Exactly. This guy is a fucking idiot.

  • Apogee||

    "talk to people who hate you just because your (sic) white."

    Yep, only white people are hated and abused in poor neighborhoods. No minority inter-hatred at all, nosiree!

  • ||

    Alright. At first, I was thinking you were a pretty good troll. 8/10 at least. But this brings it down to 4/10, maybe 3/10. You're getting some bites, but it's become too obvious for most.

  • Erisian||

    Lots of folk will now "stand [their] ground" with their 30 round magazine inserted into their semi-automatics (like you will in your post of 1:35 - jackwagon).

  • Gregory Smith||

    Well yes, you do need a 30 round clip just in case you miss, or do you support gun control? Hmmm, I thought libertarians were supposed to oppose gun control, or are you having a bad day?

  • Erisian||

    Actually I agree with Ted Nugent regarding gun control: "Gun control a la Ted Nugent is putting the second shot through the same hole as the first shot...."

    (By the way, thought you were so witty here you needed to double-post?)

  • Gregory Smith||

    Well yes, you do need a 30 round clip just in case you miss, or do you support gun control? Hmmm, I thought libertarians were supposed to oppose gun control, or are you having a bad day?

  • jacob||

    The fact you call it a clip and not a magazine makes me think you don't know shit about guns.

  • Gregory Smith||

    I know how to shoot them, that's all I need to know.

  • hmm||

    So you don't think it's heroic to go into the worst neighborhoods, enter homes with lots of rats and roaches, deal with the scum of society, talk to people who hate you just because your white. That's not heroic? I do if you're carrying a drug bag trauma bag hoping to keep someone from attending a funeral.
    Tell you what, the next time there's a Rodney King riot, don't even bother calling the cops, just run like hell or stand your ground, see if it's so easy to be a hero.
    Why run? I have better arms, more ammo, and a lot more practice than joe gangbanger?

  • Cyto||

    You could also mention the fact that when the LA riots did happen the cops pulled out to "regroup" while Reginald Denny found out how people say thank you for not running them over.

  • hmm||

    Lets not forget our Vietnamese and Korean store owning friends proved you really only need to shoot one or two looters and the rest figure out it's a bad idea.

  • ||

    """So you don't think it's heroic to go into the worst neighborhoods, enter homes with lots of rats and roaches, deal with the scum of society, talk to people who hate you just because your white.""

    If that's the definition of a hero, social workers are more heroic than cops.

  • Almanian||

    talk to people who hate you just because your white

    Well, that's mighty white o' ya, Gregory Dunphy

  • Gregory Smith||

    Forgive me, Herr Progressive, I forgot that only white people hate blacks and blacks never ever hate whites.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    So cops should be applauded as heroes when beat innocent people half to death with blunt instruments any time they feel like it because black people(interchangeable with "criminals") sometimes hate white people(interchangeable with "cops"). Is this a pretty good summary of what you're saying? There's no way this guy's for real.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Hey Gregory! Tell us more about the uppity negroes and the Lost Cause. You know you want to.

  • ||

    "If that's the definition of a hero, social workers are more heroic than cops."

    beat me to it.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    Do you think it's heroic to beat or kill an innocent civilian?

  • Gregory Smith||

    Hey, shit happens.

  • Kristen||

    I hope so very, VERY much that it happens to you.

  • ||

    In fact, Pittsburgh cops are among the highest paid in the US of A.

    Obviously, crime rates are not taken into account when cities determine cop pay.

  • ChicagoSucks||

    Wrong.

    Do they risk their lives every day? Yes

    Do we expect them to be perfect?
    No, we expect them to be accountable for their actions. I don't think that's an unreasonable request for a so-called agent of the state.

  • jacob||

    You think these 3 cops are heroes?

    Why do you even call yourself a liberterian? Applauding three cops who beat an innocent man is the furthest thing from liberterian I can think of. Why not just call yourself a conservative and tell the truth for once in your life?

  • ||

    I guess I'm a liberterian, then.

    Who is also pro-military (Navy vet, 86-94).

  • ||

    I guess I'm a liberterian, then.

    Who is also pro-military (Navy vet, 86-94).

  • hmm||

    Yet again a good reason for tar and feathering to be reinstated as a form of civil disobedience. It's getting harder and harder to be unable to justify not using some form of vigilantism against government employees. (even if such action is a slippery slope and morally/ethically corrupt)

  • ||

    These people risks their lives everyday yet you expect them to be perfect and not to screw up every once in a while?

    Not at all. We expect them to screw up. What we also expect is that when they do, they will be held accountable for it just as any other citizen would be.

    Cop negigently discharges a firearm and wounds/kills someone? Indicted and tried, just like I would be if I plugged my neighbor. Oh, and fired, just like I would be if I accidentally shot someone on the job.

    Three cops beat the shit out of someone? Indicted and tried (and fired), just like I would be, etc.

    The rule of law, that's all we ask.

  • Almanian||

    MADNESS!! CHAOS!!

  • sarcasmic||

    Rooooooooooooads!

  • Kristen||

    It would also be really, really nice if it was just "once in a while" like this badgelicker seems to think it is.

    And yes, I'm armed. And if I went out into my neighborhood on some sort of vigilante crusade shooting people with out due process, I would be in jail. Cops? Not so much.

  • Aurelio||

    At the very least, shouldn't those cops be on a road crew picking up trash from the side of the highway?

  • l0b0t||

    Hey now, that would mean a Sanitation Dept. worker, A UNION WORKER, would be displaced. Can't have any of that.

  • ||

    Yes. The union needs to have their workers on the side of the road chatting and texting. Non-union not welcome.

  • Erisian||

    I know, 'force' the cops to join the sanitation workers' Union, pay union dues, and be on paid suspension from BOTH.

  • Abdul||

    the three officers are not only collecting their salaries while on suspension but are also getting the overtime pay they likely would have received had they remained on duty, thanks to a generous contract the police union negotiated with the city.

    Initially, union officials balked at the idea of using trained hypnotists to negotiate the collective bargaining agreement, but after the saw the results obtained by the Pittsburgh Police Union, they decided it was worth it.

  • The Hulk||

    UNION SAY HULK NO CAN PICK UP TRASH. MAKE HULK HEAD HURT.

    HULK SMASH UNION!!!

  • ||

    You're killing me today, Radley.

    Seriously. I want to be able to beat people up and get a year's paid vacation. Why can't I get that deal?

  • ||

    Why can't I get that deal?

    Because you're a decent human being?

  • BakedPenguin||

    How do they live with themselves, knowing they brutally beat an innocent man? How do the look at themselves in the mirror?

  • sarcasmic||

    People do not seek out a job that involves carrying a club and a gun unless they have a desire to use those things.

    What they see in the mirror is a badass on paid vacation who put some stupid nigger in his place.

  • Gregory Smith||

    And what's wrong with desiring to use guns and clubs in the defense of freedom? What? You like criminals now? Guns and clubs are TOOLS, or are you gonna blame Doc Marteens for beating people up? No, you blame the beater, not the instrument. Boots don't kill people, people kill people.

  • ||

    "And what's wrong with desiring to use guns and clubs in the defense of freedom?"

    You do realize that police can only "enforce the law" and cite for infractions of said law, right?

    By definition, "defending freedom" is exactly the opposite of what they do for a living.

  • ||

    How do the look at themselves in the mirror?

    I'm sure it helps knowing that no matter what they do---however heinous, destructive or wanton--there will be a chorus of dipshits cheering them on and taking their side uncritically.

  • ||

    They can't look at themselves in the mirror because monsters don't have reflections.

  • Kristen||

    so·ci·o·path   /ˈsoʊsiəˌpæθ, ˈsoʊʃi-/ [soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-]

    –noun Psychiatry .
    a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

  • c_andrew||

    So you don't think it's heroic to go into the worst neighborhoods, enter homes with lots of rats and roaches, deal with the scum of society, talk to people who hate you just because your white. That's not heroic? Tell you what, the next time there's a Rodney King riot, don't even bother calling the cops, just run like hell or stand your ground, see if it's so easy to be a hero.
    Gregory,
    The irony in this post is overwhelming. Did you, perchance, follow what the LAPD did in response to the riot? Yep, that's right, took to their heels and RAN. Leaving the citizens they were sworn to protect to, er, uh, what was it? Oh yes, fend for themselves. I really do hope that you aren't really as stupid as you post and are in fact a high class troll. In which case, KUDOS. Ya got me.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Andrew, I know you loved the movie Robocop, so do I. But you see, real cops are made of flesh and bone, and when an entire community of Ghetto thugs decides to rise up against law and order, well, I expect the President to call the military and shoot them. Unfortunately, our politicians are rather sentimental about killing criminals and they did not want to be accused of racism.

    As for me, I'm very fond of that saying, "your freedom ends where my nose begins." That's what separates a libertarian from a liberal, liberals LOVE all kinds of guilty criminals, including Mumia Abdul Jabbar, Bill Ayres, etc.

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

  • l0b0t||

    I see what you did there and I do appreciate the irony of your blogwhoring for something called libertarians4freedom while simultaneously expecting the POTUS to violate the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Fuck off slaver!!

  • Gregory Smith||

    And what's your alternative? Anarchy? People running wild in the streets? Mad Max Beyond Thunderbolt? Thugs Gone Wild?

  • Zeb||

    Well, the president didn't have all of the rioters shot and we are not in a state of anarchy (though that might be worth a try). So what the fuck is your point? Lots of riots have happened. The army never came and killed all of the rioters. Civilization still exists.

  • ||

    imo and ime (frontline @ wto) our riot response compares favorably to europe's etc. when you compare how few people were injured (and none were killed) at the seattle riots vs those in europe, the cops did a pretty good job in the restraint area. otoh, the politicians, especially mayor schell were idiots.

  • l0b0t||

    My alternative is the Constitutional alternative - county sheriff w/deputies and deputized county citizens, followed by state militia if needed. The use of federal troops to put down insurrection is Constitutionally authorized, the use of federal troops to fight local crime is not.

  • juris imprudent||

    Mad Max Beyond Thunderbolt?

    That was the movie with Mel, Clint and Jeff Bridges, right?

  • ||

    Why do all these conservatives think they're libertarians? Anyone?

  • Gregory Smith||

    How many conservatives you know that support legalizing drugs and prostitution and have no issue with abortion as long as it's not taxpayer-funded? Yeah, I sound like a real-Christian conservative, right?

  • ||

    Nah, you're just a secular conservative. I know plenty. Not that it matters you can't seriously call yourself a libertarian if you believe in allowing the state to beat people up.

  • Gregory Smith||

    What part of "your freedom ends where my nose begins" do you not understand? Looters and rioters are no longer free people with rights, they are CRIMINALS, they must be dealt as such.

    GOD KILL THE QUEEN: ENGLAND IS THE MOST VIOLENT COUNTRY IN EUROPE.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....olent.html

  • ||

    They are Glenn Beck fan boys.

  • ||

    Apparently a cop's freedom to get away with beating the shit out of you doesn't end where your nose begins, but where it breaks...

  • Kristen||

    There's this little thing we have in the Constitution (you know, that lil ol document that is usppose dto be the law of the land) about due process. Jry of peers. Speedy trial.

    Why do you hate law & order so much? The LAW is that we have due process. Ergo, you hate the law.

  • jacob||

    And this is the EXACT reason you, Miss Smith, are not a liberterian. You seem to support the guilty cops who beat an innocent man. I suppose you can't overcome your liberal tendencies, but hey, shit happens.

  • Gregory Smith||

    What a dumb statemetn, it's LIBERALS who hate cops, conservatives and anyone who supports law and order love the cops.

  • Joe M||

    Is there anything to be done about this bullshit? It seems never ending.

  • ||

    Looks as though Jordan Miles made the mistake of WWB (walking while black). In graduate school I had a housemate who had a job as a fork-lift operator in Chicago. He usually worked the graveyard shift, and took the subway and bus to get back and forth to work.

    One morning just after getting off work, he was walking towards his bus stop and saw his bus coming. He immediately began running in order not to miss his bus. Two Chicago cops tackled him and roughed him up. Their reason was that he was a black man running, so he was likely a thief.

    As others have noted, cops are thugs.

  • Rock Action ||

    This isn't the first time Pittsburgh has had an issue with their police.

    From Wiki: Civil Rights Abuses and the 1997 Consent Decree

    In 1996, after the deaths of two African-American men in Police custody, the ACLU and the NAACP filed a class action lawsuit against the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, alleging a pattern of civil rights abuses. After an investigation, the US Justice Department joined the suit in January 1997, stating "that there is a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police that deprives persons of rights, privileges, and immunities secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."[1]

    After a brief court challenge, the City entered into a consent decree with the Federal Government in April 1997 that outlined the steps that it would take to improve its conduct. The decree was lifted from the Police Bureau in 2001, and from the Office of Municipal Investigation in 2002.[2]

    Further, community activists in Pittsburgh successfully used a referendum to create an independent review board in 1997.[3]

    Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LgEdMtZIVQ

  • ||

    We had the same thing here in LA ca. The cops regularly carried hot guns and a bag of dope in case of a bad shoot, or if they were bored. The recomendations by the panel went largely ignored.

  • ||

    FTP

  • Edwin||

    Actual cases of abuse aside, I've never gotten why libertarians get their panties in such a twist over cops. They're only doing their job - they're enforcing the laws that MILLIONS of voters vote for. All the people are just as "statist" as the cops, and if were in that position (having a job as a cop), would probably enforce the laws just the same. I mean, why not get angry at lawyers and judges while you're at it? They're less removed from the process of commanding the cops' force - only one iota from the cops.
    But then again, if you libertarians admitted that, you'd have to admit your problem is with people in general (those AuthoritarianFascistStatists®), and that you're deep down deeply antisocial and socially awkward, to the point of sociopathy, in your refusal to admit the need to aquiesce even in the tiniest bit to other people's ideas and opinions in order to live in society.

  • Rock Action ||

    I'll address this in a way even a non-libertarian can understand. A lack of accountability and oversight of public employees can be against the public interest. This is especially so when those employees are granted:

    a) the legal right to use force against other citizens and
    b)the right to initiate proceedings of incarceration

    I don't really know what more to say than that.

    But I've seen your posts. You don't think, you're just looking for a fight.

  • Edwin||

    Gee, no shit? Power can be abused and is a precarious thing for a society to let people have? WELL COLOR ME STUPID - I THINK YOU JUST MADE A FACT RIGHT THERE.

    As if people don't already understand that.
    But none of that doesn't excuse the particular libertarian focus on cops and the subsequent super-extreme, loughner-level, rhetoric. See my comment about the forum post below.

  • Rock Action ||

    You can vituperate all you want, but you missed what I said. It's actually a pretty healthy thing to be skeptical of powerful bureaucracies when they're entrusted with enormous power and don't act in the public interest. This concern is hardly sociopathic, it's the opposite -- it's being a citizen, and tacitly admitting a public role for certain things. Your lack of concern for abuse victims by way of bolstering your point about the general competence of today's police officers is more sociopathic than outrage and indignation over an unwarranted mauling by a city and an officer with a history of past abuses. (See: my post above, if we're playing that self-important game)

    As for your post, I don't care what some lone libertarian thinks about police, and your extrapolations that follow therefrom. That's a logical fallacy of composition.

    By the way, I already colored you stupid. I even went outside of the lines, just to piss you off.

  • Zeb||

    I don't recall ever having the opportunity to vote on the criminal laws that the police enforce. DO you get some sort of secret ballot that I have not been told about?

    But the main reason I have a problem with the police (and I think a lot of others here would agree) is that there are loads of supposed "good ones" (not to mention the unions) who will either be silent or actively defends thugs like these who most certainly do abuse their authority. This case is not jsut a couple of bad apples. This is a case of the whole police apparatus mobilizing to defend indefensible conduct. Until the number one priority of police and their supporting organizations is to root out the criminals in their midst and prosecute them to the fullest, they are all bad in my book.

  • Enough rope||

    Right!

    That's why the police aren't worried about being videotaped on the job: they know The People (tm) will support them even when they learn exactly what the "Boys in Blue" do with their time.

    Yeah!

  • ||

    Better an antisocial sociopath than a psychopath who thinks it's OK to use force to bend people to their will.

  • ||

    "Actual cases of abuse aside, Ive never gotten why libertarians get their panties in such a twist over cops."

    Some of us think that is reason enough.

    "Why not get angry at lawyers and judges while you're at it?"

    We routinely get our boxers in a bunch here over judges and prosecutors.

  • ||

    "the laws that millions of voters vote for"?
    Okay.I don't remember "beating unarmed people" on the ballot.

  • ||

    Actual cases of abuse aside, I've never gotten why libertarians get their panties in such a twist over cops.

    Well, that little aside sort of covers most of the twisted panties, wouldn't you say?

    I mean, why not get angry at lawyers and judges while you're at it?

    We do.

    But then again, if you libertarians admitted that, you'd have to admit your problem is with people in general

    OK, sure. We don't think people in general can be trusted with unaccountable power. Happy now?

    What's interesting is that libertarians generally think people can be trusted to live their own lives. Statists, on the other hand, think they can't.

    And we're the ones who have a problem with people in general?

  • Edwin||

    Anybody can pick out the worst abuses around the country and show them in one magazine. For a country of 300 million people, Reason doesn't come up with much.

    No you don't, not like you do with cops.

    You avoided my point. People vote for the laws you hate. They have widespread support. Even people who want to decrminalize marijuana want toi tax it, and only want to DEcriminalize it to an extent- selling or having more than a certain amount could still be a crime.
    The cops are just the tools - it's EVERYONE who accepts these things and makes them happen. But the worst, often Loughner-crazy-level rhetoric gets thrown at cops by libertarians.

    Yeah it's wonderful to frame it as "Trusting people with their own lives", when in reality you want property to become a form of absolute power, allowing any number of abuses by people with their property rights or corporations, and deliberately hand-wave basic human nature and the necessity of taxes and the state.

  • ||

    Try again, this time try to say something that makes sense. You obviously don't understand why we are against these laws, and then you top it off with Marxist babble.

  • Edwin||

    The issue isn't the laws, nice strawman. Plenty of people can understand why you'd think those are immoral laws.
    What I was talking about is A) the focus you guys have on cops, and B) the biased way you're framing your opinions. As though you're the only one who has human decency and your opinions are the only righteous ones, and the rest of us are just monster troglodytes.

  • ||

    What strawman? You were just arguing that the cops are just following orders when they do things like this. They aren't. There's a difference between arresting someone for violating a drug law and beating them up for violating the drug law.

    Yes, what could possibly be wrong with us for thinking that leaving people alone, not you know beating them up or taking their stuff away or interfering in their lives is the only righteous position? Apparently you aren't a monster if you don't realize what you're doing is wrong...

  • Edwin||

    I'm not talking about this article - I didn't even read it. Obviously, if a cop goes overboard he's in the wrong and can and should be prosecuted. And if that's difficult, that's a probvlem.

    But libertarians maintain that ALL cops are HORRIBLE people. Again, on another forum just rrecently one guy claimed that all cops are willing to murder anyone for any reason. The hyperbole is boundless

    That's what I was talking about. So yes, tal;king about the morality of the laws is a strawman when I was clearly talking about the particular l;ibertarin focus on cops.

  • ||

    But libertarians maintain that ALL cops are HORRIBLE people. Again, on another forum just rrecently one guy claimed that all cops are willing to murder anyone for any reason. The hyperbole is boundless

    The only hyperbole here is in your dumbass view of the libertarian position. Most libertarians think that police are necessary for a functioning society. How does that equate to ALL police are HORRIBLE? There is no libertarian focus on cops any more than a libertarian focus on abuses of power in general. This is just Balko's area of interest. You're a silly little boy Edwin.

  • Edwin||

    "Most libertarians think that police are necessary for a functioning society"

    Really? Half the regular posters here are anarchists. No matter what libertarian site or forums I go to , all I ever hear is that cops are AuthoritarianFascists®

    How about you stop fucking acting like libertarianism is reasonable just because you might be, and go and actually look at what libertarians believe. You are not the libertarian god, and nothing you say is going to change what libertarianism is.

    If you are actually reasonable and your opinions reasonable, then you're a conservative or republican with less of a concern on social issues, just retaining the free-market oriented ideas, not a Libertarian.

  • ||

    Really, huh? Blither, blither, blither. Do you remember the "beating unarmed people" law on the ballot? And his next post is even stranger.

  • Pip||

    " I mean, why not get angry at lawyers and judges while you're at it?"

    Have you been fucking paying attention???

  • Edwin||

    I have and the type of rhetoric you guys throw at cops is not the same as you throw at judges and lawyers. You guys take it as fact that if a person is a cop, he's a horrible monster no matter what, just barely different from a Nazi.
    I just read a libertarian thread on a forum where one libertarian claimed that all caps are willing to murder anyone for any reason, for example.

  • T||

    ALL CAPS KILLS!

    Sorry, it amused me. The point, which seems to be going blissfully by your head, is that those cops who will not personally pull the trigger or wield the night stick will cheerfully cover up the abuses of those that will. The police in America are fundamentally corrupt and broken.

    I'd be more concerned with lawyers and judges if I thought a pack of roving judges was going to kick in my door by mistake some night and shoot my wife and dogs.

  • ||

    LOL dude you guys are so fucking retarded. Why do you think you keep losing elections? You guys are losers. SEriously maybe you would get laid more if you thought like me?
    LOLOLOL dude. You see what i mean by shrill? I get laid all the time.
    I mean you didn't even mention any of the points i made:

    1)

    2)

    3)

    4)

    5)

    4)

    3?)

  • ||

    Edwin you're a dumbass. We have the same degree of hate for corrupt prosecutors who abuse their power as we do for corrupt judges who abuse their power as we have for corrupt cops who abuse their power. That being said, when a prosecutor or judge does something wrong and then has immunity for it, that is a problem with the rules of the system. When a cop does something wrong, there is no rule that says a cop has immunity, but they get off anyway. That's not just people following bad rules, that's criminals protecting criminals.

  • ||

    actually, not quite true. cops have 'qualified immunity' under the law. the kind of immunity prosecutors and judges have, otoh, is MUCH broader in latitude.

  • ||

    Qualified immunity only makes cops immune to things that aren't against the law but might be constitutional rights violations. It doesn't protect cops who beat people up.

  • ||

    i was referring to your "no law" in regards to doing something wrong.

    qualified immunity is the aspect of the law that in many cases when a cop DOES do something wrong, protects him. it won't protect when the wrong rises to a certain threshold of course, but it DOES protect cops who have done wrong things.

  • ||

    I'm talking about things that are on the same level as judicial power abuses.

  • ||

    Or to be more precise, it only protects cops who violate laws that a "reasonable person wouldn't know about."

  • ||

    i believe the terminology is "clearly established law".

    but we essentially agree. my point is that a cop can do something wrong and be protected by qualified immunity, a protection that many citizens would not enjoy. that's why, for instance, store security officer protocols are often much more restrictive in regards to seizures than pd's, because the store agents don't enjoy qualified immunity

  • jude||

    There seems to be a growing problem with our justice system in this country. There is alot of corruption that starts with the police and goes through the courts, including the judges. I'm not saying that all of them are corrupt, but the ones that are have been getting away with it under the guise of "serve and protect". Police officers are supposed to inforce and uphold the law. For some reason, everyone seems to think that they don't have to abide by these laws. When a police officer has committed a crime, (in this case, assault and battery), they should be held accountable like any other citizen would be. I don't like the fact that these three men got out of an unmarked car and persued this young man simply because he looked "suspicious". What did they suspect that he had done? I think if they honestly thought there was a legal issue with this person, they should have called in a regular unit to come in and apprehend this person, and take him in for questioning. These three officers were undercover, in an unmarked vehicle. I think most people would have run away under these circumstances. The next thing I have a huge problem with is that there were three full grown men trying to say that this kid assaulted them!! Give me a break!! If these three men weren't able to subdue this kid, without having to brutally beat him, I don't think that they should be carrying a loaded gun....From the way they tell the story, this kid could have overtaken them and stolen their weapons. That's a pretty big risk to the general public!! And lastly, what is the point of having a "Citizens Police Review Board", if they can't look at the reports until criminal investigations are complete. The fact that their supposed "witness" denied making any report of trespassing against the young man should be a huge red flag, and an investigation should be started regarding the false police report that these officers submitted. If police, lawyers, and judges are not held accountable for criminal acts they commit, how can they justify the unlawful way they handled checking this kid out because he "looked suspicious"?

  • ||

    Edwin's logic:

    I met a man who claimed he was a baseball. He then fucked his 13 year old niece.

    Therefore, all libertarians are baseballs who want to fuck 13 year olds and get away with it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I just read a libertarian thread on a forum where one libertarian claimed that all caps are willing to murder anyone for any reason, for example.

    Well golly gee wilickers, here's a novel idea. Why don't you find this mysterious libertarian on this mysterious libertarian thread on this mysterious forum and whine at them?

  • Mensan||

    "...one libertarian claimed that all caps[sic] are willing to murder anyone for any reason..." = "[All] libertarians maintain that ALL cops are HORRIBLE people."

    Gee, generalize much, Troll?

  • ||

    Edwin|1.24.11 @ 5:21PM|#
    But then again, if you libertarians admitted that, you'd have to admit your problem is with people in general (those AuthoritarianFascistStatists®), and that you're deep down deeply antisocial and socially awkward, to the point of sociopathy, in your refusal to admit the need to aquiesce even in the tiniest bit to other people's ideas and opinions in order to live in society.

    The definition of sociopathy is "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."

    Yup, pretty much describes all non-libertarians. IRONY.

  • Edwin||

    Actually it does. When your movement is chock full of people who think they can have sex with little kids, or think they have the right to drive drunk, or think they have the right to murder someone just for walking across their lawn, or describe voting as gang rape, or taxes as the same as the theft (even though they know ful well that they can just leave a country to avoid its taxes), or think they have the right to walk around naked and fuck in public - then yes, your movement is made up of sociopaths. People whose main beef is with the idea that they have to alter their behavior even the tiniest iota against their will.

  • Edwin||

    Every libertarian believes something sick or weird. There isn't one libertarian who doesn't. The only differences between them are which sick weird shit they believe. It's basically the definition of libertarianism.
    Show me a person who isn't like that, but still believes generally in the free market and less taxes, and you will have shown me simply a republican with some libertarian ideas (which is a reasonable position).

  • ||

    You're the most obvious troll in this thread, which is really saying something considering Mr. Smith's posts above.

  • Edwin||

    I'm a troll because I don't like Bullshit?

  • ||

    What 'sick shit'?
    And what libertarian has advocated the freedom to fuck pre-pubescent kids? Name one.

  • Edwin||

    One of the hosts of Free Talk Live in New Hampshire (the home of the Free State Project) - one of the only libertarian radio shows in the country. You guys get one fucking radio show and immediately it starts talking about fucking little kids and how everyone has the right to.

    want a link to some of the relevant episodes?

  • Edwin||

    Oh yeah, and he has his followers

  • ||

    Where's the link? Waiting.......

  • ||

    and waiting...

  • Erisian||

    (Cue crickets....)

  • Edwin||

    here ya go:
    http://media.libsyn.com/media/.....-07-17.mp3

    http://media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/FTL2010-01-07.mp3

    there's actually more, let me see if I can get to the older years

  • Edwin||

    too lazy to go get it, but if you go to their podcasts and also listen to the broadcasts on August 21, 2009, and January 24, 2009 you get more of the same perversion.

  • ||

    And you personally know this guy's voting record, stated and actual principles, regarding libertarian habits? or did he just say "Oh yeah I'm a libertarian and I like to fuck 13 year olds"

    And that one incident aside, how naive must you be to assume that every self-described libertarian must advocate the same thing?

  • Edwin||

    I never said that every libertarians believes that

    but every libertarians has some sick weird beliefe like that, and if he doesn't, then he has some reallyt stupid belief

  • Edwin||

    The guy runs a radio show after having moved to New Hampshire for the Free State Project, a libertarian movement. So one of the few radio shows you guys manage to get, and immediately the guy is saying sick fucking shit.
    I know for sure of at least one other libertarian also in NH who agrees with him. Said other libertarian also thinks you should let your kids do what they want, and you don't have a right to restrict them or what they do. But he thinks you're horrible if you spank or circumcise your kids. Got that? You can fuck your kids and you can't stop them from running into traffic- but if you spank or circumcise them you're a monster. Such sick weird shit only comes from libertarians.
    Youtube "free state project" or "free keene" - none of the other jagaloons seem to mind they're hanging out with a pervert - they scream about the cops but their pedobear buddy is A-OK.

  • ||

    Free Talk Live is an anarchist (they describe themselves as 'voluntarist" radio talk show, not libertarian. The talk show host to whom you are referring had a paid-consensual relationship with an older teenage boy. I believe the host was 13 yrs old and the boy who paid him (with video games) was around 16 or 17 years old. The show host insists that at 13 years old he was cognizant that he was having a sexual relationship, and was fully capable of giving consent. His co-host, who would be better described as minarchist or libertarian, does not agree and thinks he may still have psychological damage from the relationship and is compensating for the pain and guilt by claiming that it was his choice and he knew what he was doing. They do not say that everyone has a right to fuck little kids. They usually use the host's background as an example when they explore age of consent laws and sex offender prosecution, because many people, not just libertarians, believe that teh US has ridiculously high age of consent laws, especially when compared to the rest of the industrialized world (14 or 15)

  • Edwin||

    no, he said he was 10 and the older boy was 16
    and he gets all defensive and pissy when you suggest that young children don't have that ability to consent

  • Edwin||

    no, he said he was 10 and the older boy was 16
    and he gets all defensive and pissy when you suggest that young children don't have that ability to consent

  • Edwin||

    no, he said he was 10 and the older boy was 16
    and he gets all defensive and pissy when you suggest that young children don't have that ability to consent

  • Edwin||

    no, he said he was 10 and the older boy was 16
    and he gets all defensive and pissy when you suggest that young children don't have that ability to consent

  • Edwin||

    no, he said he was 10 and the older boy was 16
    and he gets all defensive and pissy when you suggest that young children don't have that ability to consent

  • Edwin||

    whoops my comp had froze

  • Imp of the Perverse||

    and your brain had retarded

  • ||

    too funny

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Edwin @ 12:03 1.25

    The hyperbole is boundless

    Edwin @ 6:15 1.24

    Every libertarian believes something sick or weird. There isn't one libertarian who doesn't. The only differences between them are which sick weird shit they believe. It's basically the definition of libertarianism.

    Toddle on back to the nursery, little troll. You're still too young to play here.

  • ||

    When your movement is chock full of people who think they can have sex with little kids

    Right off the bat we get bullshit.

    or think they have the right to drive drunk

    It's called tragedy of the commons. That's what happens when we have public roads.

    think they have the right to murder someone just for walking across their lawn

    That's not true. The libertarian position is that you can force someone to get off your property. You can't commit crimes even on your own property.

    or describe voting as gang rape,

    Again, bullshit. The libertarian position is that you can't vote to take someone else's rights away.

    or taxes as the same as the theft (even though they know ful well that they can just leave a country to avoid its taxes),

    So if a man comes up to you and demands that you give him your wallet or leave town, that doesn't count? Yeah, it's not theft if you leave town, but it's still a crime to make you leave.

    think they have the right to walk around naked and fuck in public

    Again, tragedy of the commons. If everyone has a right to public property then who are you to tell them they can't do something that doesn't effect you. That you don't like looking at naked people is an argument against public property, not an argument that you have the right to not see naked people in public.

    For every position you didn't make up, I can present a clear, logical reason why you have or don't have that right, based on the idea that my rights end where your rights begin. You can't do the same for your political philosophy which contradicts itself by embracing both rights and coercion as legitimate. Your system is contradictory and arbitrary.

  • Edwin||

    I didn't make up any of that - it's the diahrroea that has come out of the mouths of libertarians that I have seen in my online shmoozing

    If it's all so simple then why do libertarians still come up with that sick shit all the time?

    People can own things in common. If I can give my property to one person, why can't I give it to multiple people? Or all of the public? It's called ownership in common - how about you actually fucking read about real estate law first and then opine your BS?
    And when it is the kind of property where we may have disagreements as to how it might be used, then how do we come up with set policies? Gee, I dunno, maybe THROUGH VOTING. FYI, this is how these issues are dealt with with HOA's and condo associations. And even those have the element where you don't always get to vote (i.e. Republicanism), but you only get to vote for a representative and that rep makes decisions.

    "Your system is contradictory and arbitrary" Yeah yeah yeah, typical "I can OBJECTIVELY prove my positions" Except that anyone with half a brain knows that all you can do is assert premises, and there's no reason for me to accept them, and even then "logic" has severe limitations. Google "distrust in logic" and read Heuben's article.
    Your positions are no more non-contradictory or arbitrary than anyone else's. Why should I arbitrarily accept your premises?

  • ||

    I didn't make up any of that - it's the diahrroea that has come out of the mouths of libertarians that I have seen in my online shmoozing

    If it's all so simple then why do libertarians still come up with that sick shit all the time?

    You're not getting it, I already pointed out what is connected to libertarianism and what isn't. You can keep on with the libertarianism = pedophilia bullshit, it doesn't mean anything though.

    People can own things in common. If I can give my property to one person, why can't I give it to multiple people? Or all of the public? It's called ownership in common - how about you actually fucking read about real estate law first and then opine your BS?

    First of all, co-ownership isn't the same thing as public property. And I see the point about tragedy of the commons flew past your head. Again, the libertarian position is that you can't vote someone's rights away. Being naked in public doesn't affect you in any way or restrict your freedom.

    "Yeah yeah yeah, typical "I can OBJECTIVELY prove my positions""

    This has nothing to do with objectivity of my positions. YOURS are inconsistent and arbitrary in that they lack a logical structure. There is nothing arbitrary or inconsistent about libertarianism's positions vis-a-vis it's structural logic. This is a separate issue from objectivity. The same can be said for Heuben's dumbassery. What position in libertarianism doesn't stem from/contradicts the structural logic?

  • Edwin||

    so only the good parts of libertarianism matter?

    And the point about ownership in common flew past your head - if people have the right to own something in common and regulate its use, then why the hell not the roads? The roads are quite literally in the status of ownership in common - most roads were dedicated to the public by developers.
    You wouldn't complain if your HOA said you can't use the shared laundry facilities naked, why complain when it's your fellow citizens exercising their right to vote for that on their roads?

    The B.S. libertarians spout is full of logical holes, like the one above, and often fails to accurately describe and address reality. It's all semantic bullshit games.

  • Edwin||

    how about you go to the links I posted above and see for yourself? Why don't you call in to his show and tell him has the "incorrect libertarian position".

    Even if you do, it's not going to change the fact that libertarianism attracted a massive freak like that.

  • ||

    So if I go to a website that caters to democrats or whatever side of the political spectrum you hail from and find a couple guys saying we should have a centralized economy, can I safely presume you to be a communist?

  • ||

    Can't you just picture the foot stomping, and throwing things, doors slamming, puppies yelping?

  • T||

    think they have the right to murder someone just for walking across their lawn

    Think, hell. It's settled law where I live that I can shoot your ass for
    trespassing. So there's 35 million people with that right.

    which sick weird shit they believe

    Like the morally abhorrent idea that when the state kills you for no good reason, that's just too goddamned bad for you, and nothing should happen to the state's buttonmen?

    When you can top the sick, weird idea that it's okay to shoot an innocent person because somebody else somewhere else might be smoking pot, you come back to us. Until then, have a nice hot cup of STFU.

  • Edwin||

    Bullshit - the castle doctrine doesn't apply to your front lawn when it can ber proven that you knew your property and life wasn't in danger. The specific example was a few years back when some old dude shot a kid whom he had repeatedly told not to cross his lawn. What was happening was the kids were crossing his lawn to get to some park or play area or something. So one day, he shot and killed one of the kids.
    One libertarian told me that landowners have the right to do that.
    You guys are fucking sick. If it isn't that, then it's something else. Every libertarian believes in something weird or sick or at best incredibly stupid.

  • ||

    Edwin from your position you can pick little hypothetical positions that seem weird to you (even though they are philosophically consistent with rights if you actually thought about it). From my position I can see the vast philosophical and historical evidence of sociopathic behavior that is inherent to almost all non-libertarians. I don't need to look for quirks. It is inherently part of your philosophy to trample on my rights. You're the one who brought up sociopathy. Now it's time for you to own up to the reality of the situation.

  • Edwin||

    OK... so let me get this straight - you think you can murder a kid just for walking across your lawn, and you know for sure he's not going to damage your property or you, and I'M the sociopath?
    You're out of your freaking mind

  • ||

    Edwin read above where I wrote the explanation of libertarian property rights. You only have the right to force someone off your property. Again, you aren't being intellectually honest, just projecting dumb positions onto the Reason commenters.

    Second, I'd like a response to what I actually wrote. Even if this were the libertarian position, this is basically a hypothetical situation. People don't usually get shot for walking onto someone's lawn, so you are arguing from an extreme and rare case. I on the other hand have the entire history of authoritarianism, and just about everything that happens today, which is the *normal* way things go. So by comparision, you have no argument.

  • Edwin||

    You aren't the libertarian god - a libertarian once claimed that to me and there's nothing you can say that's going to change that. And only a libertarian could come up with something like that.

    If the "libertarian position" on that issue is so clear, why did that guy say that? FYI, he was also saying the same thing you are. He said that that is the only libertarian position, and when other posters disagreed with him, he called them totalitarians.

  • Mensan||

    "One libertarian told me that landowners have the right to do that." = "...your movement is chock full of people who think...they have the right to murder someone just for walking across their lawn."

    More generalizations.

    I can do that too: All people named Edwin are idiotic trolls who rely on generalizations and logical fallacies to support their ill-conceived arguments to support their love of the harness.

  • ||

    Actually,
    In Texas, it does. You can kill someone that has stolen property that you cannot reasonably recover.
    Even if they are fleeing out your front door.

  • ||

    but..but.. my bulleted list..

    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    and -?

    uh.. libertarians? fucktards?
    kiddie pr0N??

  • ||

    Those people are a disgrace to law enforcement. Making terrorist threats is also a felony, and not a local one either. Sounds like the FOP is a terrorist cell. But the statement was enough for extraordinary rendition, lets get on that homeland security.

  • ||

    under no understanding of terroristic threats, "true threats" (see brandenburg v. ohio) or any other legal principle are threats of future criminal prosecution an example of making "terrorist threats".

  • ||

    In this same city, another black guy died because the streets were not cleared after a snowstorm and the EMS people didn't want to risk getting their ambulance stuck in the snow. And they refused to trudge half a mile through that snow with the gurney. This after multiple calls to Pittsburgh's 911, over a period of like 18 hours.

    But in that same winter, last year, other EMS and/or firefighters (in a remote area near Pittsburgh, but a different county, I think) managed to save the lives of some farm animals from a barn fire.

    Now, after all these years, I think I appreciate a certain NWA song, plus Public Enemy's 911 is a joke.

    Oh yeah, in certain states you can't video tape the police but I'm not sure about that issue in PA (as opposed to Illinois).

    P.S., I'm a white man, raised in an environment to respect the police and the military (wich I served, in the Navy), in a small town far away from black people.

  • ||

    Well, I'm a white bloke too and if that kid was was my stepson those three pieces of shit would go from thin blue line to long red smear, about 421 days after the attempted murder.

    "La Venganza es una plata mejor servido frio"

  • No||

    I like how Edwin ignores everything and just keeps bitching about his list of bullshit. Also surprised that nobody called him out on the "not all COPS are bad, stop blaming a whole group for bad apples" and then the "ALL libertarians are morally sick, raep kids, and are sociopaths!"

    Nothing but a bad troll.

    Anyway, I'll agree to the reasonable "mistakes happen but the police should be tried for making the mistakes,' position.

  • Edwin||

    " "not all COPS are bad, stop blaming a whole group for bad apples"

    I literally never said that or anything like that

  • ||

    Funny, but I don't remember the cops being too "heroic" during the riots. In fact, they were keeping a very low profile. The shop owners who took up arms and guarded their businesses were the only heroes I saw those days. The police? Nowhere to be found. They certainly didn't do a very good job of taking control of the situation (unless you consider protecting the borders of the white neighborhoods as taking control).

  • ||

    @Radley: Awesome piece. You put all the stories together that Pittsburgh residents such as myself have been reading for a year. Perhaps most outrageous about the whole thing is that they're receiving overtime pay to this day.

  • Jesse||

    Everyone should check out this website and write a letter to the DA. There is something that you can do to help.

    http://justiceforjordanmiles.com/

  • Fake Edwin||

    I once talked to a guy.
    He told me he was a libertarian.
    He said some things that I thought were stupid.
    Ergo, all libertarians are stupid.

  • testinside||

  • heynow||

    I thought this article was going to be about the jets game...

  • nike running shoes||

    is good

  • alipay||

    good

  • دردشه عراقية||

    Thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement