Anaheim Cops Shoot Rubber Bullets, Unleash Dog on Crowd Protesting Police Shooting

When mostly Latino residents in an Anaheim, California neighborhood gathered to protest a police shooting, the cops responded by...shooting rubber bullets and siccing a police dog on a mother holding an infant child.

Below is a report from local TV station KCAL, which incorporates amateur video gathered on the spot. The result is a trenchant reminder of the distributed nature of surveillance in today's world. Reason has been covering this power shift extensively (see this video about the killing of homeless man Kelly Thomas by Fullerton, California police and the way citizens sparked an investigation). It's obviously a good thing that law enforcement at all levels is being held more accountable for its behavior but I also sometimes wonder about the irony that former Reason staffer Radley Balko (of The Agitator and Huffington Post) noted in this 2011 interview: Police are almost certainly more respectful of civil liberties than they were 50 years ago. What's changed is that regular people are more empowered to capture and circulate bad actions by the cops.

Having noted that, this is some messed-up video below.

Hat tip: Ted Balaker

 

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.

  • Fluffy||

    The protestors went into the police station and broke up the PD's press conference / propaganda session.

    http://www.wral.com/news/natio...../11342929/

    Nice chant.

  • Father Jack||

    Feck these jackbooted thugs. They should all be shot on sight. Got bacon?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Paging Dr. Sloopy, paging Dr. Sloopy...

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm here. And this is a sad reminder that cops can set the narrative, meaning rarely is there justice.

    Based on what I can see in the video, the only "civilians" not on private property are the ones being dragged in the street by the cops. Plenty of video shows the cops aggressively going at people on private property, huddled over their children.

    The 1A grants people the right to peacefully protest. It looks like that's what they were doing, since no weapons appear to be present. The cops killed a man for talking to a couple of guys in an alley and running when they (illegally) tried to stop him without suspecting him of a crime. That was murder, and the community had every right to question it. Unfortunately for them, the police had a different idea. They cordoned them off with police tape (seen throughout the video) and then started their turkey shoot.

    These people have rights, and those rights were violated by these violent and ruthless policemen.

    As far as the dog goes, it is obvious the cops are chasing it, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it was accidentally let loose. All that changes in my book is the assault charge gets reduced from aggravated to simple assault, with additional counts of reckless endangerment for however many "civilians" were in the area the dog ran to.

    This just sickens me. These animals are terrorizing people with impunity and most Americans just shrug their shoulders until it is their family member laying there.

  • General Butt Naked||

    If you can't control your attack dog then you shouldn't have one. Guess we can't expect officers with dogs trained to attack humans to be 'experts' in animal handling.

  • sloopyinca||

    That excuse has worked for their firearms "expertise" (or lack thereof) for decades. I can't see why they wouldn't try it with their K9's as well.

  • Pinky||

    The dog was lucky it wasn't running toward a cop, then it would be a dead dog. Funny how that works.

  • Whahappan?||

    Remember, dunphy to the contrary, police and other law enforcement personnel are held to a MUCH lower standard than untermensch.

  • purple_persuader||

    The 1A?? Seriously? Do people ever bother actually studying the USC.

    1) The USC was a compact between the states, see Article 7. Thus, Lincoln threw out the USC and is no longer in effect.

    2) Even granting that the USC was still in effect, the 1A does not apply to the states, and yes I'm fully aware of the specious arguments concerning incorporation by the 14th.

    3) You say these people were on private property? DO you have proof they were on their private property, or if renting such gathering was part of their contract? As I said, no context.

    Gotta love the knee-jerk "libertarian" crowd, more like faux libertarians.

  • Fluffy||

    If the 14th Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states, the constitutional order has no value, and these cops all deserve death for enforcing the laws of a tyrannical state.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Fluffy, free speech absolutist are "faux" libertarians so cut it out, or something.

  • Fluffy||

    It's kind of silly to simultaneously assert that Lincoln destroyed the constitutional order and there no longer is any constitution, while also asserting that we have the respect the police.

    The police working for a postconstitutional usurper tyranny are worthy of respect? Huh?

  • sloopyinca||

    Have you ever seen dunphy and purple headed monster persuader in a room at the same time?

    Just sayin...

  • General Butt Naked||

    I think p_p is punching above its weight and doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about.

  • purple_persuader||

    Who's is claiming that we have to respect the police? Police are supposed to be governed at the state or local level, so the USC has nothing to do with it.
    Again, the USC per article 7 was a compact between the states, this means that any party could leave the agreement as long as any obligations such as debt incurred was dealt with. It is absurd to argue that other parties that were equals and not superiors could deny such a departure. Lincoln refused to acknowledge this and as a result refused to receive ambassadors negotiating for Ft. Sumter. He thus violated his oath and fiduciary responsibilities.

  • Fluffy||

    Blah blah blah blah Lincoln!

    Lincoln won, dude.

    That would mean, by the terms of your argument, that the US doesn't possess a legitimate government.

    Since the victory Lincoln won (again by the terms of your argument) abolished the sovereignty of the individual states and made them mere instruments of an illegitimate federal government, the states don't possess legitimate governments, either.

    And municipalities are creatures of the states, in every state in the land.

    So it would be a clean sweep - illegitimate governments all the way down.

    You're arguing that the police didn't exceed their authority, because there is no 1st Amendment. But if there's no constitution, the police possessed no authority to exceed. Every other point you make is moot. They had no authority to be anywhere or to do anything.

  • wef||

    Well, is the regime legitimate or not?

  • ||

    Since the victory Lincoln won (again by the terms of your argument) abolished the sovereignty of the individual states and made them mere instruments of an illegitimate federal government, the states don't possess legitimate governments, either.

    This isn't true. The South attacked first. The federal government can legitimately attack aggressors foreign or domestic.

    the constitution does not say shit about occupation and reform of territory that the US government has taken both during and after the conflict.

    Was the occupation of Japan illegitimate after the end of WW2?

    Even if you claim the south was a foreign power Lincoln's actions would be constitutional.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Lincoln won, dude.

    So did Stalin. Doesn't mean he was right.

    -jcr

  • purple_persuader||

    The constitutional order has no value? What a vague, imprecise statement. IOW, worthless.

    Most cops are concerned with local issues, not protecting BoR issues, and while they may deserve death for enforcing a tyrannical states laws, it does not follow from a lack of enforcing your vague "constitutional order".

  • sloopyinca||

    The constitutional order has no value? What a vague, imprecise statement. IOW, worthless.

    So if cops started enforcing Prohibition on booze again, you'd be just fine with it because "Constitutional Order has no value"?

    What if they started refusing entry to 20 year-olds to the ballot box? Or better yet, women!

    You really are a simple-minded one. I'll chalk your arguments up to either trolling or mental retardation. And I'm leaning strongly toward the latter.

  • purple_persuader||

    Your arguments follow no logical train. Did I anywhere advocate prohibition or your other absurd allegations? Nice strawmen. Did I even argue on behalf of the police? Nope. I merely state there was no context to the video.

    On another note, you've asserted that these people had a 1A right to protest. Do you have proof they were doing so on property which such a right was extended to? Can you prove that the police were not called out because property rights were being violated? In a libertarian society wouldn't there be a security force protecting property that per it's contract would be granted by the owners right to use force to dispel trespassers?

  • General Butt Naked||

    What?

  • Fluffy||

    You're the one asserting that there's been no constitution since 1865, dude.

    Try to keep up with the implications of your own dopey arguments.

    If there's been no constitution since 1865 (heck, 1861 - but why quibble?) our entire governing structure is illegitimate, from the Presidency down to your local dog catcher.

    It would mean that we actually don't have any "police". We have "people executing violence on behalf of an illegitimate state, without any real moral or legal authority". In other words, clay pigeons.

  • purple_persuader||

    As I stated previously, the police are local and state government creatures, not federal, so learn to think.

    I'm not arguing legitimacy, are you arguing a right of people to occupy any property and protest? How is that legitimate?

  • Fluffy||

    I'm not arguing legitimacy

    Um, sure you did.

    You explicitly argued illegitimacy, and dispensed with both the constitution in general and the doctrine of 14th amendment incorporation in particular on legitimacy grounds.

    But you can't delegitimize the government part way. If we don't have a legitimate government, I can literally do whatever I want on any property I choose and there is no authority anywhere with the legal or moral right to stop me.

  • General Butt Naked||

    ???

  • sloopyinca||

    1: Are you out of your fucking mind?

    2: You're calling incorporation "specious," when it's been settled for over a century and has been ruled as such in every case brought to the SC ever since? If yes, please see my response to 1.

    3: Any property not owned by the public (i.e. streets, government land, etc) is private by deed, and unless the property owner had called the police to report trespassers, then these people had a right to be there. By your fucked up logic, all property is public except for the actual owners of the property. Anybody with half an ounce of brains knows that the private property rights are transferred to tenants. If not, the police could enter anybody's house that rents, owes a mortgage or has an equity line on their property.

    Seriously, if you're gonna hinge your arguments on these three points, you're not going to be taken very seriously here. Try harder next time, troll.

  • purple_persuader||

    3) First. No, all property is private, and unless a right is granted to someone not being the owner, then there is trespass being committed. So fuck off idiot.

    2) So now, the tyrants who have continued to violate the USC and perpetuated tyranny are correct in their exceeding the limits of the USC?

    Again, fuck off idiot. Go learn something.

  • sloopyinca||

    3) First. No, all property is private, and unless a right is granted to someone not being the owner, then there is trespass being committed. So fuck off idiot.

    And who, pray tell, is there to grant that right to the non-owner?

    2) So now, the tyrants who have continued to violate the USC and perpetuated tyranny are correct in their exceeding the limits of the USC?

    What the fuck are you yammering about? Seriously, this statement makes about as much sense as a mongoloid with a mouth full of graham crackers.

    Again, fuck off idiot. Go learn something.

    *snickers*OK, hot shot.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Anger isn't helping to make you any more coherent, bro.

  • sloopyinca||

    Anger isn't helping to make you any more coherent, bro.

    You know what's sad? That could have been directed at him or me and still been accurate.

    Which leads me to apologize to the reason commentariat. I've been a little harsh today. For the last couple of days, really. I am just fed up with people laughing at victims of the police, calling them stupid, idiot or dumbshit when they are in the morgue. And I'm tired of hearing about cops attacking protesters huddled over kids with rubber bullets. And shit like the Kelley Thomas murder.

    I know I have this visceral reaction once every few months, and I know it may end up being a thread killer from time to time. And I'm sorry for that, but I won't sit idly by and watch this shit without opening my mouth.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Dude, I agree and know what you are saying. Even if I did disagree with you your words are at least coherent.

    p_p's comments are verging on word salad.

  • nipplemancer||

    This is why I mostly lurk. The Dunphys and Tulpas of the world bring the worst out of me so I chose to not engage. It's okay Sloop. Fuck them.

  • cryptarchy||

    I'd rather lurk as well. I can learn more by watching the pro's construct their arguments rather than make myself look fucking stupid.

  • ||

    ^^^^ This.

  • ||

    Sloop, you are the most consistent and most fluent about these issues. I would rather lurk and learn, than spend more time being in the "Anger making me less coherent." stage.

  • ||

    You are a fucking moron and a dispicable human being. THE FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ADOPTED BY ANYBODY (Even though it IS applicable to the states) BECAUSE THOSE ARE INALIENABLE MOTHERFUKCING RIGHTS.

    Die in a fire you piece of shit.

  • ||

    A point, you have. The rights mentioned aren't granted by the Constitution, they're just rights the Constitution specifically recognizes that people have. Rights are, by nature, not "granted", but simply exist as part of us.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Exist as part of us, how? Because as we say so? As a property of some physical particle?

  • ||

    They are the rights that exist in a state of nature.

    LOCKE FTW!

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You've stated nothing but a conclusion. How do they exist in a state of nature? By what mechanism other than our saying so do they exist?

  • ||

    I think therefore I am?

  • johnl||

    California has freedom of speech and assembly in its Declaration of Rights. It's simple shorthand to call these 1A rights.

  • sloopyinca||

    California has freedom of speech and assembly in its Declaration of Rights. It's simple shorthand to call these 1A rights.

    I had actually forgotten this,* but thanks for pointing it out, johnl.

    *Probably forgotten because so many things California does run counter to it: free speech zones on state campuses, limits to the number of attendees and/or speakers at public hearings and events, forcing organized protests to obtain permits which cost money and can be arbitrarily denied and myriad other restrictions to their own guaranteed "right."

  • Anonymous Coward||

    1) The USC was a compact between the states, see Article 7. Thus, Lincoln threw out the USC and is no longer in effect.

    Amazing! I can almost not see Thomas DiLorenzo's hand up your ass as you parrot his rantings.

  • juris imprudent||

    Oh, this is FIRST-RATE trolling. I'd say the best around here since Cesar.

  • Brutus||

    I'm sorry, but any private citizen who failed to control his dog to that extent would be cited for it if it attacked someone. I don't even give the cops the benefit of the doubt on that.

    I would, however, like some context, video-wise. This looks awful, but if recent events teach us anything, it's to wait on the full story.

  • purple_persuader||

    I'm not saying that the cop should not be held accountable for losing control of the dog, but to assert that it was let loose is frankly to lie, at least from what I see. As I stated earlier, I want objectivity, not knee jerk subjectivity. This is not a winning argument for libertarianism is made. Fine if you want to kvetch to your fellow libertarians do so,but don't consider it a valid argument on behalf of libertarianism.

  • Brutus||

    If you're a trained K-9 officer, I don't see a lot of difference in the two, though there is some. You're either vicious or incompetent...take your pick.

    As I said, I'd like to see what was going on before this clip, but from here it looks like peaceful protestors being assaulted by cops.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Nobody's making any argument on behalf of libertarianism. You can be a democrat or republican and believe that people should be able to gather without being shot with rubber bullets or attacked by vicious dogs.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You can be a democrat or republican and believe that people should be able to gather without being shot with rubber bullets or attacked by vicious dogs.

    But not a neo-confederate.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    If John Q Public's attack dog got loose and attacked people he would criminally and civilly liable whether or not it was intentional.

  • Whahappan?||

    Which is the difference between us and agents of the state. And believe me, it's us vs. them, just ask them.

  • Father Jack||

    I want bacon.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I guess one could say it's better than if the cops had "unleashed" the dog on the crowd, as the headline claims.

    But yes, they're still responsible.

  • Whahappan?||

    HA! You slay me. Remember the mantra of the State: Power without responsibility, authority without accountability.

  • Cyto||

    Do you see a leash flopping around trailing the dog? No? Then I suppose "unleashed" is an appropriate term.

  • Tulpa the White||

    As far as the dog goes, it is obvious the cops are chasing it, so I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it was accidentally let loose.

    If one of the protesters had given the pooch a dirt nap, I would have fully supported their right to self defense. Because I'm consistent.

  • sloopyinca||

    So would I. Just like I would support a cop if they shot a dog on public property.

    On private property they had entered without the owner's consent or a warrant...that's a different story.

  • Tulpa the White||

    The cops' presence on that private property was not illegal. I don't consider walking up to someone's front door to forfeit your right not to be attacked by whatever creatures they keep hidden there.

  • A Serious Man||

    Yeah, but if you kick down the door or hop the fence into the yard then the dog can reasonably be said to be defending its owner--one of the purposes of having a dog.

  • Tulpa the White||

    which wasn't the case in the story in question.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Seems to me that if I ever want to have dogs for home defense, I should be sure I have at least one more than however many rounds are in the magazine of whatever kind of gun the cops are likely to be carrying.

    Feeding sixteen dogs could get a tad expensive, though.

    -jcr

  • sloopyinca||

    What if they had a NO TRESPASSING sign prominently posted? Or a fence?

    Sorry, but your right to not get harmed stops when you unhinge and open my front gate and enter onto a secured part of my property.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Make up some more facts, sloopy. It's cute.

  • sloopyinca||

    I was talking about a hypothetical situation (that seems all-too-common). What case were you talking about, and could you please provide a link to it?

    I'm not "making up facts," shit for brains. It would be pretty hard to do for a case you never discussed the specifics of in the first fucking place.

  • Tulpa the White||

    The latest dog shooting that I was attacked over. Where they went to a woman's house to tell her her son was dead and then were attacked by her dog.

  • sloopyinca||

    The latest dog shooting that I was attacked over. Where they went to a woman's house to tell her her son was dead and then were attacked by her dog.

    And what the fuck does that have to do with me, shithead? Was I on that thread? Did you reference it on this one for some context?

    Don't tell me I made up facts and then tell you and I are not even discussing the same thing. That's bullshit and you know it.

    By the way, I linked you a few follow-ups on the Andrew Scott killing that show the door and the entry points and angles of the bullets. Feel free to address that any time you please.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I'm sure you were there. You're ubiquidious on cop threads.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm sure you were there.

    [citation required]

    Which still doesn't excuse the fact that you assumed every person on here knew you were referencing a specific case you once talked about.

  • Tulpa the White||

    I shouldn't have assumed that, I admit. We have a free-flowing relationship that does not respect thread boundaries and I copped too much of a feel. I apologize.

    But, you're still wrong.

  • sloopyinca||

    But, you're still wrong.

    At the risk of being a nag: how? All you said before is that I kept adding facts. How am I wrong in the scenario I presented (which is the most common one when it comes to police shooting dogs.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Make up some more facts, sloopy. It's cute.

    There's no evidence that the dog you are referring to was vicious or that it had attacked the pig that shot it.

    There is evidence that he was a pussy that reflexively killed it.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't consider walking up to someone's front door to forfeit your right not to be attacked by whatever creatures they keep hidden there.

    You don't. But I would say that I should bear legal responsibility if my dog DID attack you, but until it DOES attack you it's a chattel on my property and you're just going to have to suffer with your poor little feelings of scaredy-ness.

    It's like saying that if you come on my property and think that my car looks dangerous you can blow it up. Or, more on point, if my burglar alarm goes off and it startles you, you're entitled to whip out a gun and start shooting at speakers until the alarm stops.

  • Tulpa the White||

    IF your car was rolling toward me in an uncontrolled fashion I would have every right to destroy it to protect myself.

  • sloopyinca||

    IF your car was rolling toward me in an uncontrolled fashion I would have every right to destroy it to protect myself.

    Bull shit. I have a good faith expectation that you will extricate yourself from the dangerous situation whenever possible on my property, especially if you entered into a secured area uninvited and/or without a warrant.

  • robc||

    Dogs != cars.

    Cars are inanimate objects that will follow basic laws of physicals, once they start rolling towards you, they arent going to stop unless something stops them.

    Dogs, on the other hand, have control over themselves. "Its coming right for us", isnt a legit defense to shoot a dog. Dogs run towards people. They bark. That doesnt mean they are a danger.

    I had it happen last week, a big dog starts barking and running towards me as I was out walking. I was in the street about to enter a cul-de-sac in which the dog lived, apparently. It came running toward me barking. I stopped. It skidded to a halt at the edge of its yard. I walked back the other way. It stopped barking and walked back to its house.

    As it turned out, I probably could have kept on going and it would have walked along the edge of the street barking at me and never leaving its yard.

    I was never in danger. For a few seconds I wasnt sure. Same for cops, 95% of the time they shoot dogs, they were never in any danger. If they had waiting 10 seconds more, they would realize this.

  • sloopyinca||

    If they had waiting 10 seconds more, they would realize this.

    How dare you impugn our fine Law Enforcement Officers. Besides, they have families to go home to and they are heroes that put their life on the line (not quite as much as fisherman or electrical workers, though) to make your life better.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Dogs can also change direction to follow you, unlike non-Hasselhoff cars.

  • robc||

    Dogs can also change direction to follow you, unlike non-Hasselhoff cars.

    True, but following != attacking, as I think my story made clear also.

  • niobiumstudio||

    Really? That is like saying "I have every right to defend myself on your property from you and your property." So if you break into my house, and I have a gun pointed at you (which I would) - you have the RIGHT to defend yourself? I think not.

  • robc||

    Once attacked, the cops can shoot the dog.

    A dog running towards you barking has not yet attacked (and probably wont be).

  • John C. Randolph||

    The 1A grants people the right to peacefully protest.

    NO IT DOESN'T.

    The constitution does not create our rights. It delegates some of our rights to the government, and lists certain specific rights that the government may not infringe.

    -jcr

  • sloopyinca||

    You're absolutely right, and I correct my earlier statement. The 1A acknowledges the right of people to peacefully protest and says the government may not infringe upon it.

    Sorry. I meant no offense.

  • Mensan||

    Depends on the definition of granted
    Merriam-Webster:

    grant verb \ˈgrant\

    3 a : to be willing to concede
    b : to assume to be true

    ...

    Synonyms: acknowledge ...
  • LibertarianAmazon||

    Ah, police violence and attempts to cover it up. Welcome back to So. Cal., the memory of Rodney King lives on. Swing on, Mr. Policeman, swing on you crazy asshole.

  • purple_persuader||

    I call BS. There is no context to this video. That doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing by the police, but I see some people standing right in front of the police not even being shot, and it looks more like the dog got away from it's handler, not that it was set loose on anyone.

    I want not objective proof, not subjective interpretation of unclear footage that is lacking a starting point and fuller coverage.

  • Chris Mallory||

    There was no need for the dog to even be out of the vehicle. Just as there was no need for the cops to have weapons at the ready. Of course if one of the cops had been approached by a deadly Golden Retriever he would have shot it, so it was a shame the person savaged by the trained attack dog didn't have the means to kill it.

  • Ice Nine||

    The dog might not have been out of the vehicle originally. I used to work with cops and I've talked to K9 guys about their dogs. When a K9 unit pulls up to the scene the rear window of the vehicle is rolled down while the cop/handler investigates/orients. If the handler gives the command - usually in German so the dog can't be ordered by someone else speaking English - the dog goes into action. The dog also automatically launches if his handler is accosted. Unfortunately that also occurs if the dog perceives that his guy is being accosted. That could be what happened here.

    Or, the K9 cop could have been a dumbass who was using his dog inappropriately.

  • johnl||

    It was a noisy and confusing situation and the dog could have become distressed.

  • Virginian||

    Wait they seriously order dogs in German?

  • SKR||

    Yes. It's also called schutzhund training. Don't attach any semiotic significance to it.

  • ||

    and it looks more like the dog got away from it's handler,

    and attacked a lady sitting in a chair with a baby?

    I do not think so.

    Police dogs are trained to attack and do not run around randomly attacking people sitting in chairs on the lawn.

  • blackjack||

    If you have a dog and you know it's capable of great bodily harm and you release it, even accidentally, it's criminal negligence. Like shooting into the air and having it hit someone.

  • purple_persuader||

    oops, no "not" in front of objective.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Anyone being approached by a large dog trained to attack humans, should be legally allowed to shot that dog as per policy and procedure.

    Which ever officer shot the man in the back should be up on charges.

    (J) Kidney


    Medical implications


    (I) Rupture of the kidney, with bleeding in the capsule can be prevalent with or without broken ribs. Hydrostatic pressure from the impact of the twelfth rib hitting the kidney can cause the rupture.


    (II) There will be peritonitis, extreme pain, bloody urination, coma and death. The kidney capsule (membrane that holds the kidney in place) would be torn from its moorings, causing bleeding into the body cavity; and because the ureter is displaced, a bend or twist in the ureter would result in urinary blockage, followed by infection or sometimes death.

  • Fluffy||

    I'm going to toss in another outrage just for laughs:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07.....wanted=all

    Someone inherited a Rauschenberg. It includes a stuffed bald eagle, so it's illegal to sell it per federal law.

    But the IRS says even though it's illegal to sell it, they want to force the heirs to pay taxes on it as if it were valued at $65 million.

    And people wonder why I cheered when that guy flew a plane into that IRS building.

  • General Butt Naked||

    My coworkers are going to wonder why I have an icepack affixed to my crotch tomorrow.

  • ||

    Tell them it's because you took a trip to Austria or England, where violent crime is pervasive, and got kicked in the nuts by a mugger, and you're glad that you're finally back on safer soil.

  • General Butt Naked||

    If only I'd of had my gun the cunt wouldn't of got the drop on me.

  • ||

    Of course, being a silly, primitive American, you decided to fight back and broke the guy's arm before he ran off, so now you're facing jail time for assault, and the mugger's looking at the possibility of receiving court-ordered financial restitution from you.

  • General Butt Naked||

    ...and when I was treated at the "free" hospital for my sore nuts they amputated three fingers on my left hand.

    Should have went to Somalia.

  • ||

    But not before you died of dehydration in your hospital bed when the government-run hospital's nursing staff ignored your pleas for weeks.

    Should have gone to Hell instead.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh, I am ever going to write some scathing reviews on tripadvisor. Scathing!

  • ||

    Next thing you know, it'll be recommending Sunny Afghanistan for idyllic landscapes, great weather, and friendly locals.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The opium is wonderful this time of year. And the locals, when they aren't trying to blow you up, are so quaint and old fashioned. Also, the mountains have miles and miles of unpopulated hiking trails.

  • sloopyinca||

    Jesus Christ!

    Art values are so volatile that there's no way they should ever be taxed until sold. These people are being forced to sell off art solely to pay the tax bill. There's something inherently wrong with that.

    The IRS is the worst thing about our federal government, making the TSA look good by comparison. I wish every person that worked for them woke up tomorrow with AIDS and inoperable cancer of the asshole.

  • ||

    They should incorporate that into their official titles.

    "John Doe, IRS Asshole Extraordinaire."

  • A Serious Man||

    "Mr. X. Tortion, IRS Auditor."

  • tarran||

    This is why Warren Buffet is an evil little monster.

    Berkshire Hathaway does steady business buying family businesses that have to be sold at fire-sale prices to pay the estate tax,

    Of course, you could avoid the estate tax by purchasing sufficient life insurance to cover it. Not suprisingly Warren Buffett is heavily invested in those as well.

  • A Serious Man||

    Proof that the inheritance tax is the most morally reprehensible tax there is.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Not by a long shot. Taxing something earned is worse than taxing something inherited.

    This is just a weird (and unconscionable) application of it, not an inherent problem with the tax.

  • A Serious Man||

    I disagree. When a person dies they should have an absolute right to bequeath their property to whomever they want without the government sticking its hand in there and turning a boon into a white elephant. It punishes both hard work and death while putting grieving families through the hell of going through the IRS.

  • Fluffy||

    Guys, we don't have to fight about the merits of the estate tax.

    That's really beyond the scope of what's going on here.

    What's going on here is that an item that cannot be legally sold has a dollar value of $0. No matter what the IRS says, no matter what their art advisory council says. An item that can't be sold has no value.

    That these people even open their mouth to begin to offer a counterargument proves that they are insane, and that we are living in a Kafkaesque nightmare.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Actually, one of the art people in the article speculated that since the IRS considers illegal income to still be taxable, they could make the argument that the black market value of the art is taxable.

  • ||

    That's fucking awful.

  • Fluffy||

    That's even more insane.

    Black market income is taxable, once you break the law and enter the black market and earn the income.

    Taxing you on the opportunity cost of a black market you haven't entered is like taxing me on the dollar value of the heroin I didn't smuggle from Afghanistan.

    "If you had decided to become a heroin smuggler, you could have earned a billion dollars. That means you owe us $350 million."

  • sloopyinca||

    "If you had decided to become a heroin smuggler, you could have earned a billion dollars. That means you owe us $350 million."

    Dude, seriously, stop! They're gonna get ideas.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Sloopy, it's already the law.

    Illegal activities. Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity.

    http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch12.html

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Do you have to specify the source of the income, or just state a dollar amount?

    Because, it seems to me that forcing you to state that you've engaged in criminal activity violates the 5th amendment.

  • nicole||

    Even if you only have to state the dollar amount, it still amounts (ha!) to a declaration that you've done something illegal. Does self-incrimination have to be specific?

  • Whahappan?||

    Ha ha! You expect the people who enforce the law to obey it?! It's not as if they've sworn an oath or something.

  • sailshonan||

    One must report income from illegal activities, and expenses incurred from illegal activities are deductible, except for expenses related to income arising from illegal drugs. That information was in a sample question from my CPA exam study guide. I pointed out to my professor that contract killers could legally deduct expenses, but drug dealers could not...

  • Tulpa the White||

    Taxing you on the opportunity cost of a black market you haven't entered is like taxing me on the dollar value of the heroin I didn't smuggle from Afghanistan.

    No, not analogous, since you don't have possession of the heroin as they have possession of the stuffed eagle.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    So how about a woman... she has possession of the accoutrements necessary to be a prostitute. Should she be taxed on the income she could have made if she had engaged in the illegal activity?

  • sloopyinca||

    It depends. And would we be taxing women that look like Jos Truitt the same as ones that look like Michelle Jenneke?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Well, I think the proposal is noxious so it's not a matter of should, it's a matter of is it consistent.

  • Tulpa the White||

    They're dependent on the govt to enforce the transfer of property. You think the banks etc just take the heirs' word for it when it's time to transfer the money?

    If you don't want to deal with estate taxes, give your heirs the stuff before you die.

  • sloopyinca||

    They're dependent on the govt to enforce the transfer of property. You think the banks etc just take the heirs' word for it when it's time to transfer the money?

    They're not dependent on the government nearly as much as the government interjects itself into the transaction.

    What % of wills are contested? The % that aren't has no need for the government to be involved, while the smaller % that does can easily be handled by civil litigation. Probate is nothing more than a way for attorneys and the state to forcibly extract money arbitrarily from the rightful owners and/or heirs of the property.

  • robc||

    Not only that, almost everything is handled by the executor, which is why they are entitle to a cut.

    The probate court basically rubber stamps what the executor does, if they do it right, and unless someone challenges the will.

  • Tulpa the White||

    What happens when the bank says, "no, we're not going to transfer this money to the heir's account, we're going to keep it in the deceased's account." (which effectively means it's theirs forever)

    Your executor isn't going to the bank with guns and badges to force them to follow the will.

  • sloopyinca||

    So your solution to an extreme case (which I've never seen occur in real life) is to involve the court in every single transfer of an estate to the rightful heirs?

    Should we do the same with criminal behavior and be forced in to court from time to time to recap our activities so they can charge and prosecute us for crimes we may have inadvertently committed?

    Man, I never realized how much of a statist you were until recently. It's really quite bad.

  • Tulpa the White||

    (which I've never seen occur in real life)

    Because you've spent your life living in the cocoon of protection of a robust state that no bank would dare to defy in this manner.

    You don't say a night watchman is worthless because no one ever tries to break in while he's watching.

  • gulo gulo||

    Tulpa the White|7.22.12 @ 7:51PM|#|–|
    I'm sure you were there. You're ubiquidious on cop threads.

    Fantastic

  • gulo gulo||

    Tulpa the White|7.22.12 @ 7:51PM|#|–|
    I'm sure you were there. You're ubiquidious on cop threads.

    Fantastic

  • ||

    Wouldn't that be even more of an argument for a usery fee instead of straight up taxing 35% of what I inherit?

  • sloopyinca||

    Wouldn't that be even more of an argument for a usery fee instead of straight up taxing 35% of what I inherit?

    I'll ask you the same thing I asked blackjack: why do you hate women, minorities and children, DesigNate?

  • ||

    lol.

    I was told I had to when I received my top hat and monocle.

  • robc||

    What happens when the bank says, "no, we're not going to transfer this money to the heir's account, we're going to keep it in the deceased's account." (which effectively means it's theirs forever)

    The courts would get involved, like with any other contract case. They dont charge 35% of ever contract in order to enforce them.

  • robc||

    Gift tax.

  • blackjack||

    That money was taxed back when it was earned also. If we figure about 30 percent when earned, now about 50 percent when inherited, not to mention the reduction in earning and increase in price from all the other parties taxed who hired/sold to the earner, you're left with what? 10 percent?
    Yeah no problem with that kind of taxation!

  • sloopyinca||

    Blackjack, why do you hate women, minorities and poor people? Why?

  • Tulpa the White||

    Ugh, that's a thorny issue.

    Maybe he should offer to just give the stuffed eagle to the IRS.

  • robc||

    Would he get credit for $65 million paid?

    If so, that would cover the tax on the eagle plus a good bit going forward.

  • Tulpa the White||

    “The ruling about the eagle is not something the Art Advisory Panel considered,” Ms. Barron said, adding that the work’s value is defined by its artistic worth. “It’s a stunning work of art and we all just cringed at the idea of saying that this had zero value. It just didn’t make any sense.”

    Cringed. What a c*nt.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's an expensive cringe. Ouch.

  • Fluffy||

    The work's cash value is defined by its potential sale price.

    Your sentiments about the place of the work in art history or what have you are utterly without dollar value. Bitch.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Given that they describe his work as "Rauschenberg’s combines, which inventively slapped together everyday objects he found on the street, helped propel American art in a new direction. " I'd say the sentiment about the art should be "what a pile of junk."

  • nicole||

    A woman who works for the federal government "cringing" at something her own employer has brought about, and then literally twisting reality to accommodate her own cognitive dissonance (while, as a nice bonus, completely screwing a private party)...it's just too much.

  • Paul.||

    All of this is why income tax is immoral. You receive something... "of value"... a bunch of bureaucrats have to decide, rather arbitrarily I might add, what that value is, then you must fork over, in real dollars, a percentage of that value to the IRS. If you don't have the cash for the thing of value that the IRS has identified as "income", you are forced to sell the thing of value thus forfeiting ownership of that thing.

    The government essentially denies you use and disposal of real property you receive as a gift or inherit from another person. It's vile.

  • Mr. Soul||

    i would argue taxing income is immoral for two other reasons:

    1) taxing something discourages it and you never ever want to discourage work.

    2) Taxes presuppose that we are reimbursing govt for that which we consume. Earning income consumes nothing.

  • sailshonan||

    That cunt pissed me off something awful. Better you and your Arts komitet not have to "cringe" than save someone from a multi-million dollar tax bill.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    I wonder if they were able to insure this. Or if Ms. Barron's museum was able to insure it while they were displaying it.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So donate it to a museum and take a $65million deduction.

  • sloopyinca||

    Why don't they transfer it out of the United States and sell it? The IRS can't prevent them from transporting something that is not illegal, and once it's overseas, it can't keep them from selling it.

    If they want to really do something clever, take it outside of the USA and transfer ownership to a corporation set up in Ireland (zero to little tax on art), and have that corporation sell it at auction.

    Fuck the IRS.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yes fuck the IRS for sure.

    But this particular law also prohibits exporting live or dead eagles too.

  • sloopyinca||

    But the bird was stuffed prior to the law's passage. Shouldn't that grandfather it? Also, since the feds have never gone after the owners of it, wouldn't they have some sort of good faith exemption to the law?

    Hell, spirit it away in the middle of the night and plead the fif when they ask you about it? Then let them go after you in the court of public opinion. No way they come out looking good, especially in light of the sum already paid in inheritance taxes on the other works. If anything, it will cause an outcry against overly oppressive inheritance taxes in general.

    Failing that, say it is political speech and burn the fucker to a crisp in Times Square. Sell the ashes and pay the taxes on that amount.

  • ||

    I would knock the bald eagle off of it and sell it.

    The bald eagle I would burn in a trash can film it and put it on youtube...with ad compensation set to kill

  • John C. Randolph||

    Seems to me that when the government says you can't sell something you own that's worth $65M, that's a taking under the fourth amendment definition, and uncle sam owes them $65 M. So, whenever those government deadbeats pay up, the heirs can pay the IRS whatever taxes are due.

    -jcr

  • Ken Shultz||

    Once the smoke clears, and the individual officers have been properly identified, I'm sure the local prosecutor will make sure that each and every law enforcement officer that deserved to be charged will get a fair trial in front of a local jury.

    ...just like anyone else would 'cause that's the way the system works.

  • Father Jack||

    Hahahahaha! Feck, I wet my pants!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "siccing a police dog on a mother holding an infant child"

    Yeah, those women armed with infants can be dangerous. Just ask the guy who shot Vicki Weaver.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Mindless, emotional twat-twaddle from former MSNBC host:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....oir=Yahoo

    Fucking leftists. How do they work?

  • Brutus||

    Bring it on, Cenky.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Cenk is such a pussy. Just like virtually every other leftist.

  • juris imprudent||

    First, the lie about 3000 kids, and then - does he even actually suggest some law that would've caught Holmes before the fact? No. This shit isn't even emotional twat-twaddle - it is the drool from the corner of the idiot's mouth.

  • R C Dean||

    Fucking leftists. How do they work?

    I thought they were mostly on "disability".

  • BoscoH||

    Every one of them involved in this response should not be a cop. Every single one of them. There was no immediate danger to anyone but the gathered protesters. Fall back, let them vent, be there to assist people if needed. Just terrible judgement all around. And if you're a white cop shooting bean bags at families, you're too dumb to have a badge. Just disgusting.

    P.S. The man who got bit by the dog just won the lottery. But the price is that he could very easily have a permanent, disfiguring injury from that attack.

  • ||

    P.S. The man who got bit by the dog just won the lottery. But the price is that he could very easily have a permanent, disfiguring injury from that attack.

    The woman and her baby I hope does as well. The City should raid the cops pension plan when it pays out the imminent civil case loss.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Teenager reveals the names of other teenagers who sexually attacked her and posted the results on the Internet. She thinks the proposed plea-bargain is too lenient.

    Naturally, she's charged with contempt and faces jail time.

    http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/.....f-privacy/

  • ||

    Naturally, she's charged with contempt and faces jail time.

    She is not an officer of the court...She went through no due process that binds her to the decision of the court.

    Complete bullshit.

  • sloopyinca||

    That's what I thought. Yes, the judge can issue a gag order for a pending matter, but once ruled upon, he cannot bind anyone other than an officer of the court or a party to the case (in this case, the defendant) to a further gag order.

    This is bullshit, and I hope the judge gets exposed, the sexual assaulters get exposed and this victim gets a huge chunk of money in the pending civil litigation against the perps and against the state for this bit of bullshit.

  • ||

    as the attorneys for the boys have asked a Jefferson District Court judge to hold her in contempt

    They rape her and then pushed the court to silence her.

    Their names should be plastered on drudge.

  • Tulpa the White||

    It could be the parents of the kids who are doing this.

  • Tulpa the White||

    And interesting that we're assuming that anyone who plea bargains is guilty here. Are we going to apply that to drug cases too?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The whole plea-bargain system is a scandal, but I don't see how the court system has standing to say so in *this* case. "We can't let the names of these juveniles be broadcast, because they might be innocent people whom we've railroaded. Heck, our procedures encourage such results! So it's best we censor the names just in case they are innocent kids from whom we coerced guilty pleas."

    I'm going out on a limb and guessing that this isn't the judge's reasoning.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But if they're innocent, they can always do what Brian Ross's victim ought to do and sue their accuser for defamation.

  • ||

    We are talking about a rape case here.

    The simple legalistic of proving a rape case makes this unlikely.

    Without physical evidence they would have walked not plea bargained.

    So yes I put more faith in the guilt of convicted violent offenders then I do drug cases.

  • johnl||

    Physical evidence of sex. No evidence needs to be provided about rape. Even in cases where there is no evidence of sex, defendants are hard pressed. The Duke defense cost $5Mil.

  • ||

    The Duke case was some crazy political battle over a bunch of feminists who wanted to make an example of some white frat boys...and a media and prosecutor who decided to jump on board with he feminists.

    Yes battling that can be expensive.

    But this case does not fit that description. The fact that the judge is calling her in contempt using unconstitutional grounds to so would imply the system is not on her side on this one.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "jump on board with he feminists"

    I snickered.

  • The Fatman||

    They filmed the sexual assualt you fucking ignoramus. That is why they plead it out. Would you go to court when the evidence against you is the film you made of yourself commiting the fucking crime. You really should join Dunphy in that fucking fire ass wipe.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The guys that plead guilty to sexual assault in this case are named Will Frey III and Austin Zehnder.

  • ||

    Well done.

  • sloopyinca||

    Here's the LA Times take on this story: Angry Anaheim crowd threw bottles at police, set fires on streets

    Like the title of the story? They used one single source of information for the entire story...and that source was Sgt. Bob Dunn of the Anaheim Police Department.

    Heaven forbid they would have gotten anything from, gee I don't know, the people involved or some eyewitnesses. Of course, doing that might mean reduced access in the future, so better to reproduce the police's word as the gospel truth.

    Especially nice FTA: One harrowing moment was when a police dog somehow got free from an officer's car and went at several people. Dunn said it was unclear if anyone had been bitten or injured.

    "The officer was quickly able to get the dog back into the vehicle," Dunn said.

    Seriously.

  • Tulpa the White||

    and went at several people.

    Who the hell are they hiring to write for the LAT these days? If I didn't know the story I'd think the dog was peeing on people.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    One harrowing moment was when a police dog somehow got free

    The dog 'somehow' got free? Was there a witch on hand who magicked the dog out of the car for shits and giggles?

  • juris imprudent||

    The dog was accidentally discharged.

  • SugarFree||

    WARNING

    Some cuntnugget troll [cough]Mary[cough] has posted a spoiler for The Dark Knight Rises below.

  • Invisible Finger||

    They used one single source of information for the entire story...and that source was Sgt. Bob Dunn of the Anaheim Police Department.

    This is exactly why I stopped buying newspapers 10 years ago.

    There was a gas station robbery in my neighborhood several years ago. The single-source article (the police, natch) was so weak anyone with an analytical mind would immediately have dozens of questions about the actions of the police.

    For example, the 4 squads of police had been following the guy for about 30 minutes. They knew the perp parked his car in an alley but rather than block the alley, they decided to open fire as the guy walked out of the gas station/convenience store instead. And this is right across the street from a school. The police even said they had been tracking the guy for weeks and knew where he lived. And they opened fire rather than apprehend him in the alley or at home.

    Trigger happy cowboy cops endangering lots of other people for nothing but sheer adrenaline or laziness, and the reporter gets only their side AND writes them up as heroes.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    The culture of sneering contempt for humanity forms the bedrock of the authoritarian state which is carried on the disreputable shoulders of enforcement and their snarling unions.

    Slick collective manipulation of the masses is how we get here and then rot into a militarized oblivion.

  • ||

    Dude it's Perd Hapley! I never even knew...

  • RPR2||

    I can't believe Perd is a real reporter. Ya Heard With Perd.

  • gulo gulo||

    So, the dog's coming at you, and you're legally armed. You draw and kill it.

    How much time do you spend in prison for killing a police officer?

  • sloopyinca||

    This guy got 5 years in what reads like a pretty sketchy case. He was pursued by a cop that has faced animal cruelty charges but walked because he wasn't mirandized. Also, he was only charged with killing the dog and a weapons violation. No burglary charges were even filed and the man was shot by the police as his dog attacked him. The man ended up paralyzed from the waist down.

    Strange one. Does anybody remember reading anything about it?

  • Generic Stranger||

    You're assuming you'd survive the fusillade of bullets sent your way by the actual police officers.

  • sloopyinca||

  • General Butt Naked||

    Reading it now.

    I wish there were easy answers for situations like these. It'd be nice if we could say that a 13 year old is as responsible for his actions as an 18 year old but that simply isn't true. On the other hand what he did was so monstrous and so offensive to our sense of morality that it makes it almost impossible for him to ever be free again.

  • sloopyinca||

    Yeah, seriously a compelling story. And I'm as opinionated as anybody you'll find, but I'm at a total loss on how this guy should be dealt with.

  • General Butt Naked||

    After reading the article it seems that the sentence he received seems appropriate. I don't say that after meditating on it and letting the wisdom of the universe inform me from a place of nothingness and nirvana. It dawned upon me when I was done reading the story that I didn't think his sentence was too harsh nor did I think it too lenient; I surmised that some sort of Red Riding Hoodian justice was served.

    When you're of a reactive nature you should trust your instincts and investigate meaning any time an extreme situation elicits no reaction.

  • ||

    After reading the article it seems that the sentence he received seems appropriate.

    I feel the same way.

  • Generic Stranger||

    For some reason that article brought to mind one of the definitions of chutzpah: a man who killed his parents begging for leniency because he's now an orphan.

  • nipplemancer||

    It's a very difficult situation. Yes, he killed his parents in cold blood for perceived slights that, to a 13-14 year old weigh heavily. Caging him and counseling him until he's a somewhat normal human seems more appropriate than caging him for an arbitrarily determined number of years.
    More importantly though is that if he were to be freed sooner than his sentence runs out, what kind of support system would he have on the outside? I'm not talking about government programs, but will his family, those who he has wronged, are willing to help him out and continue trying to make him a better person.
    Keeping him locked up until he is an old man without any chances of making a life for himself is more punitive than it is corrective.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Punishment should be the point of the "justice" system. He should have been hanged after his trial. He planned and committed two murders.

  • The Fatman||

    If he was part of my family and killed my relatives he better stay in jail. It is the only place he would be safe. Especially if he was my sibling and it was my mom and dad he killed. Deranged fucks should burn, we shoot mad dogs. That is what he is. Fuck him.

  • Barstool Optional||

    Batman dies.

  • sloopyinca||

    **slow clap**

  • ||

    really? In the movie?

    I am surprised the reviews are so bad then.

    Is it Superman that kills him like in the Frank Miller comic?

    I would give the movie 5 out of 5 if that happened if only for being such a balls move.

  • Barstool Optional||

    Bruce Wayne survives

  • JeremyR||

    Is it really empowerment? Sure, we can take pictures of police doing bad things, but nothing actually ever happens to said police.

    Meanwhile, police have geared up so they are probably better equipped than the armies of most nations. I think they're ahead

  • triclops||

    I think it is empowerment. The level of authority abusing sadism is variable from cop to cop. Knowing that they are being recorded can help the marginal cases who can control themselves a bit.

  • ||

    I'd like to reitereate a point RC Dean made to Dunphy: Pigs are about enforcing authority and order. Pigs are not about protecting liberty or property.

    God I hope the great economic collapse happens that leads to chaos. Pigs in these urban area might get some justice.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Pigs are about enforcing authority and order.

    .

    FTFY. I didn't see a whole hell of a lot of "order" in that video, and it was mostly the cops causing the "disorder".

  • R C Dean||

    "Disorder" is defined as defiance of authority.

  • Paul.||

    her son was dead and then were attacked by her dog.

    Assumes facts not in evidence.

  • Lord Humungus||

    who in the hell fires rubber bullets into a crowd with small kids? That's a recipe for death right there.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    "who in the hell fires rubber bullets into a crowd with small kids?"

    ...people who are trained to determine that every living thing that is 'external' to their unit is an opposing force. Small children wouldn't be a consideration on the scale of violent response to a perceived threat because they require a pause in judgment which cannot be allowed under any circumstance.

    Classic military mindset coming to roost on the community streets. This is how you gird the minds of hordes of naive youngsters as they battle unknowns on foreign soil. The catastrophic amount of injured and murdered children has as much impact on the progression of war and police violence as a moth does.

  • Barack||

    That's some crazy shit, firing rubber bullets into a crowd with children.
    That said, what happened BEFORE the video was taped? Need to know.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    The children pelted the army of mean men with bottles and an assortment of street waste and fired spit bullets at them from their newly-formed pieholes.

  • JimVooo||

    lol stupid cops are sure stupid lol.

    www.fun-anon.tk

  • Agile Cyborg||

    "Crystal Ventura, a 17-year-old who witnessed the shooting, told the Register that Diaz had his back to the officer. She said the man was shot in the buttocks area.
    The man then went down on his knees, Miss Ventura said, adding that he was struck by another bullet in the head. She said another officer handcuffed the man, who by then was on the ground and not moving.
    'They searched his pockets, and there was a hole in his head, and I saw blood on his face,' Miss Ventura told the newspaper.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z21SaTt3hK" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ldren.html

    If this can bizarre situation can be verified is it any wonder the neighborhood was in a rage? I've never heard of a cop handcuffing a person with a bullet hole in their head and since when is it legal to kill a fleeing suspect? This whole situation needs some serious fucking attention from the DOJ.

  • daltonallan||

    as Norma implied I am amazed that some people able to make $4245 in 4 weeks on the internet. did you look at this web site makecash16com

  • Todd Gilbert||

    Without all the details it's too early to criticize the police. I did see the (protesters)throwing objects at cars.Great way to voice your objection at the police, lets go break a store window. I wounder how many of the degenerates were illegals.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement