Civil Liberties

Another Libertarian Arrested, Released For Bogus Crime of Filming a Protest


Libertarian activist George Donnelly participating in, and filming, a Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) action outside a federal courthouse in Allentown, PA, was assaulted, arrested, and had his camera taken by federal agents earlier this week. Full report on the details of the incident from the Libertarian Examiner.

Yesterday, from a new Libertarian Examiner report, Donnelly is now out of jail, though it is unclear from their report whether the charges were dropped.

In a very similar incident–FIJA protest, courthouse, camera grabbed, arrest–in New York late last year, blogged by me back in April, the charges were dropped against victim Antonio Musumeci. In addition, the aggrieved is suing the Department of Homeland Security over it, with the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union. The complaint in that case.

NEXT: Can We Quit the UN Yet?

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are law enforcement just so completely uninformed on the very laws they are supposed to enforce that they actually think it’s illegal to film them publicly? Or do they know quite well, but just don’t give a shit because they know they won’t be punished? Or do they not even care, but only care that someone talked back to them and now needs to learn that they’re little people…the hard way?

    I actually think it’s a combination of all three. Fuck, I hate pigs.

    1. Problem is, it doesn’t matter which. We’re deprived of actual liberty when they can act the way they do. And, of course, that kind of law enforcement behavior chills such activities in the first place.

      1. Id doesn’t matter which in the way you describe, but it would be nice to know whether the pig you’re dealing with is just stupid and power-tripping, or is actively malicious.

        1. Id doesn’t matter

          I would say it would of primary concern when dealing with these psychopathic cop types.

        2. There’s always the purges after the libertarian menace takes power. Don’t forget those.

        3. There is a difference?

    2. I don’t know about the filming in particular but passing out FIJA literature in front of the court house is an easy way to get arrested all by itself.

      1. there’s that little thing we call teh First Amendment that should prevent that.

        1. Yes it should, but don’t count on it. There are other little things protecting the bench and bar like obstruction of justice,jury tampering, contempt of court and other charges. Even if they don’t “stick” it clears the sidewalk for a while.

          1. Fuck the draft!

      2. Bullshit. You have the right to pass out literature about your views on public property — and to press charges against any police officer who interferes with that right.

        1. I agree, but good luck getting charges pressed against a cop.

          1. I guess it’s a good thing we don’t live in Iran huh Tulpa.

        2. Haha. Good luck with that.

      3. Really? I do it in Keene, NH all of the time and there isn’t a problem.

        1. Seize him!!

          **points at Keith**

    3. I don’t know about this whole liberty of filming stuff. I mean, do you think the person responsible for filming this scene should be free to walk the streets among us?

      1. That clip is gold, Tulpa. I just posted it on my brother’s Facebook page.

        1. I love the comment about a half-dozen down. “this is realistic’ especially the bit about “don’t touch me” all while touching him. I have to agree, the scene suffers from being too realistic, minus the cursing. Arguments with a woman are often inane, repetitive and illogical. This scene captures that pretty well.

      2. Thanks, Tulpa! I agree with The Art-P.O.G. If the rest of that film is as funny as your clip, Plan 9 from Outer Space better not rest on its laurels!

      3. But does she wanna know?

      4. I hate this reverse bandwagon phenomenon. People seem to mostly just echo other people’s opinions when they say some work of performance art is bad. Yes, the clip does have problems. It would’ve looked fine on stage, but the man turned to the camera too much, which is the director’s fault because it appears they had 2 cameras going yet acted as if they had only 1. So yeah, the product is not so good, but it hardly qualifies as so awful as to be on a “worst” list.

        1. Sorry, but I have to question why Emmanuelle was dubbed over by Apple’s text-to-speech Agnes voice.

      5. You had me watch a clip that reminded me of my ex ? Thanks a lot.

    4. They just don’t care.

  2. hate/Hate/HATE to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but…

  3. I used to think that jury nullification was one of those things that was relegated to libertarian esoterica, something interesting to take out and look at, but rarely to be used. Now, with the ever-expanding list of previously-innocuous actions that will land you in a state or federal court, I see JN as something very likely to be applied practically and often in the near future.

    1. I used to think that jury nullification was one of those things that was relegated to libertarian esoterica, something interesting to take out and look at, but rarely to be used.
      I’m assuming that this attitude was pre War on Drugs?

    2. If I ever have to do jury duty (my only summons was when I was in grad school, and was never called back), I’m going to look for even the smallest excuse to nullify.

      If it’s a drug case, short of the use of violence, nullification is a sure bet.

      1. I hung a jury in a federal narcotics trial.

        1. Well done, dude.

          1. Let’s see what you think when pro-cop juries exercise their alleged right to nullify in police brutality cases.

            1. Oh joy! The cop fellator is here!

              1. If I were as you say I am, I would relish the thought of police brutality nullifications. Surprisingly, I don’t.

              2. WTF? What are you doing on my time frame? How much coke have you snorted?

                1. Epi-won that is.

                2. Just got done watching the TNG episode where Bev gets seduced by her grandmother’s ghost lover. Epi, you missed Picard walking in on her strumming the clitty!

                  1. I fucking hate that episode. “Let’s give Gates a chance to show her (non-existent) acting chops!” The only thing that could have redeemed that episode would have been torturing Wesley until he shit himself.

                    1. Worst episode in TNG, no ST, history.

                      “Its a plasma based flame”. Well, duh.

                3. It’s Thursday, Naga. I save blow for the weekend. I work 12 hours a day, so I end up being up pretty late.

                  1. Indeed. Indeed. What do you think about this Always Sunny in Philadelphia move to Comedy Central? I worry. Will they cut the nuts off of them like they almost did South Park? I don’t know. I worry. I lose sleep at night. Especially since for almost a year now I’ve actually slept 8 hours instead of my usual 4 hours. What’s your reaction?

                    1. I don’t care, because I have seasons one through four on DVD. I watch what I want when I want. Will they cut it? That’s not really productive, but CC is often stupid, as evidenced by the Mohammed episodes.

                    2. I watch what I want when I want

                      Whateva. Whateva. I do what I want.

                      Anyways . . . what if they kill the golden goose like with Chappelle? There are rumors that he was out of material and rumors that the retarded executives couldn’t abide by his kingship of all that was awesome at Comedy Central. I don’t know and I don’t care. More Chappelle please. Oh. Wait. Nevermind. Write your congressman dammit! Before this happens to the greatest television sitcom ever. EVER, dammit!

              3. ::grins:: You can actually factually use that argument on me. 😉

            2. I think that has already happened a number of times.

      2. I have been excused from jury duty twice after telling the judge that I would not vote to convict someone of a non-violent drug offense no matter the evidence. I told the judge that I didn’t believe the government had the authority to ban drugs.

        1. Big whoop. You’re supposed to get on the jury and *then* do the speecifyin’ in order to sway the jury. All you did was just get out of jury duty.

  4. Anyone who defends this guy’s arrest is a prick.

    Just thought I’d get that out there.

  5. Not quite released, he is currently under house arrest charged with assaulting a US Marshal. The only thing he can think of that they will claim is that he “assualted” one marshal by being shoved into him by another marshal.

    1. That happens in ice hockey all the time. The defenseman pushes an opposing player into the goalie, and the opposing player gets called for goaltender interference. That usually leads to a “beer bottle through the TV” event.

    2. His face assaulted the Marshal’s fist.

  6. This is America, Kyle. When a dozen or so federal agents tackle and beat you without provocation, that’s called assaulting a federal LEO.

    1. This is why there needs to be no such thing as federal law enforcement. At least, nothing like ATF.

      Keeping your cops local and keeping liberty intact are far better ways to handle law enforcement.

      1. there can be federal LEO, but their job should be arresting pigs like Joe Arpaio

  7. Cue the kneejerk law-and-order defenders in 3…2…

    1. has ANYBODY defended the LEO’s in this case?

      not me, and not anybody else.

      i think these knee-jerk law and order defenders are a figment of your imagination.

      1. We used to get a lot of them. They don’t show up here as often anymore.

  8. Just to clarify, George was not filming a protest. It was simple pamphleting to educate the public about their rights as jurors.

    @Pro Libertate: Bingo. However, we will not be chilled. We will return to Allentown and continue to step up our efforts. They met 3 of us with a dozen goons. We will have 3 dozen next time.

  9. If only there was a major political figure, of either party, who supported jury nullification


      Wayne Root publicly supports jury nullification of law on his homepage. For that reason alone, it would be good to have him more in the public eye. This is the way the LP becomes mainstream, and a serious threat to the establishment.

  10. I don’t understand why they had to bring him down to Philly. One would think a federal prison would have a place to lock a person up nearby.

  11. Root! Root! Root for the home team!

    Has anyone ever felt like the DHS was the home team? Or even though you pay its bills that it was on your side?

  12. I find it interesting that the one that was arrested was the one with the camera, not the one passing out seditious literature. I think its obvious that they know that truth is their real enemy.

  13. George is out, but according to his Facebook status he’s under house arrest. He’s also put out the call for a First Amendment attorney.

  14. Let’s see what you think when pro-cop juries exercise their alleged right to nullify in police brutality cases.


    And you know, liberty comes with some sacrifices. No one asked for utopia.

    1. I’ll take the sacrifice of having to get a law repealed by legislative and judicial processes that are accountable to the people. There is NO accountability with jury nullification. See, white-on-black crime in the Jim Crow South.

      1. me too, I’m a law and order libertarian. We need to have some faith in democracy to get the laws right…and we need to let the feds interpret the rules for all the stupid citizens, otherwise we would have anarchy!

        1. the juror is the finder of fact and like it or not, it is their RIGHT to nullify. that’s well established.

          iow, jury nullification is not an erosion of rule of law. it is PART of rule of law.

      2. Jim Crow South, huh? So if you were on a Jury and a black guy was about to get the death penalty for miscegenation, but you were 100% sure he had knocked up a white chick, you’d vote to convict any ways?

      3. This is jackassery. The first Southern Jim Crow laws were the first gun control laws. Racists enforcing the laws at the time had every bit, if nor more the effect of institutionalizing racism. Over time, humans tend toward more liberty –and even if they didn’t, judicial instruction wouldn’t help achieve justice, liberty, or equality under the law. To the extent the law is moral, it shouln’t be nullified, but because so much of the law is unjust, it makes sense to allow a last-ditch check on the system’s power to punish. Today, judicially-instructed juries send blacks to jail by the truckload, with jurors feeling they have been a tool of racist injustice afterward. Paul Butler is an outspoken advocate of jury nullification for this reason.

        Arguments to this effect ignore the existence of racist mala prohibita, and of the entire mala-prohibita system. Very few laws should be enforced, so the natural pressure is for nullification to be a force toward liberty and justice. Moreover, the white jury nullification you speak of is an anomaly in today’s world, rendered all the more obsolete by a fair selection of true “peer juries”.

  15. fuck Allentown

  16. Not one Billy Joel reference? You people disgust me.

  17. Fuck Cops and Fuck Authoritarian Cop Sucking Conservatives who defend them

  18. this hippie prick is lucky he was predator done attacked…sure in hindsight you know it is a camera, but that could have EASILY been a rocket launcher and we are asking our troops to make snap second judgements when their lives are at risk. In my opinion this terrorist sympathizer got what he deserved.

  19. I’m a conservative…ish, and often defend cops. However, I often criticize them also. They have a tough job, and receive a lot of unjustified criticism. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t a fairly large number of cops who do stupid shit just cause they can, or don’t know better. Always hating on cops is irrational, unless you truly are an anarchist.

    In this case, based on what is writen above, they had no justification to arrest this guy. It’s ridiculous that he must go through a situation like this due to a mistake, or a power trip, or whatever it was that motivated it. Cops involved should all be publicly reprimanded, and punished.

    1. Cosmotarian Overlord, I disagree. that guy filming the cops could have distracted the public servants jsut as they were ont he trackof a terrorist who had planted a time bomb. What if that distracion kept the cops from finding the bomb in time?! then the guy who was “just filiming” would have been guilty of helping the bombers! this crap is what makes me angry…we need to treat the authorities with some respect!

    2. Hell, I’m married to a cop. There are a ton of assholes in the business, but there are also good men and women who do the job because they really believe in, you know, helping people. My husband would be WTF?! at this — he actually got his own camera, when his village wouldn’t provide it, because he didn’t want to be accused of anything untoward. Used it every stop.

      The biggest problem with the police isn’t the individual. Assholes exist everywhere. It’s the stupid-ass, knee-jerk, fearful society that encourages them to deal with so-called riff-raff, and gives them far too much power to do so. The War on Drugs wasn’t a police invention. It was an American people invention.

      1. thank you…cops are just following orders. Some people may not like the drug war, but we live in a democracy with laws so the cops have to follow orders and leave individual thought, decision making and morals at the door. The right thing to do is follow orders.

        Anyone who doesn’t like this philosophy is a insurgent anti-social,rabble rouser that needs to be locked away.

        1. your cynicism aside (it has a beat and i can dance to it), there is this pesky thing called rule of law.

          cops have to enforce some laws they disagree with. every sentient cop (and yes, we do exist) will disagree with some laws. i think there are plenty of laws pursuant to the war on drugs and war on domestic violence that are simply wrong. i don’t get to choose, cafe style, selectively not to arrest certain people for example for domestic violence offenses. the law MANDATES arrest in those cases.

          there is this thing called seperation of powers. cops are executive branch. they don’t MAKE law, they enforce it. there are two branches that can (effectively) change the law – legislative and judicial (if the law is unconstitutional etc.). not the executive branch

          and then there’s citizen intiative, where the people are the legislature.

          if i catch johnny toker with a joint, i have discretion. i can give him a warning and have him dispose of it. if i catch johnny snorter with 5 gms of cocaine, i don’t have that discretion.

          1. You sound like one of the good guys.

            But you bear moral responsibility for your own actions. By definition of “moral” if you really think about hard enough. Saying “it’s the law”, can’t change this fact.

            The sooner you admit that to yourself, the less painful it will be when you finally realize it.

            1. i agree. everybody bears moral responsibility for their actions.

              and under a system that has a rule of law and where laws are passed by duly elected representatives, i don’t think it’s immoral (or unethical) to enforce laws, including those laws i disagree with personally


              you might think it is immoral.

              and if you pay taxes, you are helping pay for enforcement of laws you disagree with. is your payment of taxes an immoral act, then?

              1. You can call me a coward, if you want, but thats the only valid complaint I see here.

                I bear no responsibility for what an armed robber does with my money after he steals it. Nor do I bear any responsibility for what any government does with my money after they tax me. But I repeat myself.

                1. i’m not into name calling, but the reality is this

                  you KNOW your tax dollars, which you CHOOSE to pay (vs. deciding not to pay them and suffering the consequences) go in part to fighting the war on drugs (and war on terror etc.)

                  you choose to pay money to support immoral causes.

                  i choose to enforce laws, even those i disagree with.

                  you can call me a coward. i could call you a coward. but the point is we both support policies we don’t support (if you get my meaning)

          2. I agree. The problems with law enforcement are a matter of policy. The individual cop has little discretion and should not be blamed for the laws they are mandated to enforce. This is, of course, not meant to excuse bad cops, there certainly are some.

            Lower level policies, such as no-knock raids, are procedural and set by police administrators. This supra-military behavior needs to be changed. Cops should be citizens, they should not adapt an “us V them” mentality. The war on drugs is the root cause of most of this thuggish behavior and it needs to be changed, i.e. repeal those prohibition laws but that is obviously a legislative problem. Individual cops’ behavior is under their own control, though, and they need to be ethical and obey the law just like the rest of us.

            1. no knock raids and (over) militarization (police are, have been, and should be quasi military in some respects) is a bad thing. imo, a large part of why this happens is because of the following…

              all govt. agencies seek to increase their size and power. duh. that holds true for divisions within those larger agencies.

              SWAT seeks to justify its existence. in many jurisdictions, the need for SWAT type raids are few and far between. there are DEFINITELY cases where SWAT is needed, and offers a safer alternative for all involved (to include suspects), such as certain hostage situations, certain reinforced drug houses, etc.

              but, and this is especially true in smaller agencies with part-time SWAT, SWAT will seek to change policy such that they are required in more and more types of tactical events, so they can justify a full time SWAT and/or overtime and/or more power. the more raids, the more SWAT is needed, the more power they have, and the more overtime they get

              i saw this happen in my own agency until eventually they were smacked down when the powers that be came to their senses.

              1. I agree with everything you wrote. The only way I see to force the “powers that be” to come to their senses is to have some sort of citizen oversight committee that simply forbids no-knock raids in most cases. Adopting the military’s, reasoned, methods that are used in Afghanistan for example would be a good start.

                You, as a cop, have some influence on the rational thinking that needs to be adopted when applying force in enforcing the law. I realize that it is somewhat dangerous from a professional perspective to buck the crazies that you must work for and with, but to the extent that you are able, you should. Maybe passing on some of the thinking from this discussion would be a start?

                1. first of all, like i said, noknock warrants are very limited where i work. that’s due to case law and dept. policy

                  these people i work for aren’t “crazies”. they are cop-o-crats. like most bureaucrats, they have the idea that their little fiefdom is all important, and they seek to make their lives easier and get more power.

                  1. these people i work for aren’t “crazies”. they are cop-o-crats.

                    I have been thinking about this statement. I understand bureaucracies, I work in one. To say they promote the unending use of SWAT teams and no-knock raids just to make sure their piece of the pie continues to expand makes them much worse than crazy, it makes them evil on a very fundamental level. These are not the kind of people who should be in law enforcement, much less in a policy setting position.

          3. The nuremburg defense is not philosophically valid. “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” -Henry David Thoreau

            And, as a matter of course, a part of breaking such laws (that require injustice of you), DON’T SIGN UP TO ENFORCE THEM. The moral people who should be cops are thusly not cops. Join them, in not being a cop.

            Or, die by the sword, and deserve it, for picking up the sword and swinging it for a tyrant.

            It’s of little consequence to me, unless our paths cross.

            Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

            If you work for the mala prohibita state, then the laws you are working for are immoral. Lay down your arms, go home from us in peace. Take up arms against your former employer, until the law of the land defeats only “mala in se” crimes.

            At that point, you can morally be a cop, and not one minute before.

            If my meme infects your head, are we better or worse off? Better. Clearly. No question.

      2. No, the asshole cops aren’t the real problem. It’s the OTHER asshole cops that stand around and are silent while the assholes are abusing people. The “Mexican piss” event in Seattle last week had a few cops who stood around and watched. They are 20x more guilty than the guy actually doing the beating.

        Until EVERY cop rats out the bad apples, then EVERY cop is an asshole.

  20. Thanks for covering this! The irony is that as we slip more and more into a surveillance state–a deplorable development in a free society–the state is determined to stop US from watching them (the rEVOLution will be Youtubed!).

    Similar to George Donnelly, as a fellow liberty activist and Free State Project participant, I was arrested on March 24, 2010, for allegedly videotaping the Weare Police (NH) during a traffic stop. In addition to the original charge of “disobeying a police officer,” I have now been charged under wiretapping statutes, a felony which carries a seven year sentence. I’m launching a vigorous legal defense, and will keep you updated.

  21. in my agency, and in my jurisdiction, no knock raids are already significantly limited, due to both case law and dept. policy, fwiw

    1. Good.

      I still think all police departments should operate under the oversight of citizens. If I were on such an oversight board, no-knock, middle of the night raids would be abolished. There are safer and more effective ways to arrest people.

      SWAT teams, if they existed at all (I do agree that there is a legitimate reason for them in very limited circumstances), would not wear military uniforms and they would not wear masks, ever.

      Another major corrupting influence are asset forfeiture laws, they simply encourage armed robbery with the cops as robbers. If I were to rewrite the AF laws, I would never allow any portion of the proceeds to go the police, or judicial system; all forfeited assets would be rebated to the tax-payers at the end of the year.

      Cops who violate the law, in this case where a guy filming on the court-house steps was falsely arrested, for example, would be disciplined, up to arrest and criminal charges. It is legal for a citizen to video-tape cops; it is illegal for a cop to deny a citizen that right.

      1. this is a problem with the overuse and misuse of swat teams is that (theoretically) intelligent people such as you could even question their utility and necessity. swat teams are a great life and injury saver, but are simply overused and misused.

        i have seen all sorts of situations where really bad situations were solved by swat where patrol simply did not have the resources, training, equipment to handle it.

        1. There is no doubt in my mind that intelligent people could grasp the need for and proper use of SWAT teams. I know it is distasteful for police departments to be under the control of citizens, but I think it is an absolute necessity. One needs only to look at the scope of the problem, (Kathryn Johnson was murdered in Atlanta, a detective was shot and killed in Virginia) to know that the problem is out of control and to realize that police departments are not going to fix this problem on their own.

          1. well, not to get all pedantic n stuff, but i have seen others make this point that cops ARE citizens. this is somewhat of a false dichotomy. but i know what you MEAN.

            it depends what you mean by “control”. oversight is good. otoh, as a firearms and use of force (to include deadly force) instructor, i am well aware that any review board that is not sufficiently trained in law and policy surrounding such issues is less than useless in overseeing anything.

            also, let’s be honest here. any police dept. that has an appointed chief, as most do, is completely politically beholden to the mayor/town councils in many respects and is hardly autonomous.

            but i agree. oversight is a GOOD thing. i want the rights of cops protected, and i want the rights of those that cops deal with protected. that’s why i encourage cops to record citizen encounters and vice versa. protects against false complaints AND brings bad cops to justice

            Note that my jurisdiction has two party consent and some think that recording cop/citizen interactions at least in one on one interviews etc. runs afoul of this. imo, and that includes case law analysis, it does not , because the law of two party consent only applies to “private conversation”. and any routine police/citizen interaction is hardly “private”. it’s about as public as it could be in that the cop is a PUBLIC officer, required in many cases to write reports, etc. based on what he is told.

  22. By control, I mean a group of citizens who review and approve major police policy. In today’s discussion I am interested in and talking about how to apprehend violators where the expectation of violent resistance is low. The typical scenario that is brought up on H&R almost daily is a no-knock raid on a suspected drug dealer. When the typical story makes it to H&R, the cops have fucked up big time (Kathryn Johnson, the Missouri raid, wrong address, etc). I am not interested in teaching proper use of force or use of weapons, I am interested in keeping cops out of situations that make those things likely to be considered. It is almost always easier and safer to simply wait and arrest a suspected drug dealer while he is out of his house, and then serve the warrant and search the house.

    You sound like one of the good guys. Just to be clear, I am not anti-cop, quite the opposite. I am sure you realize that incidents like the one reported here reflect very poorly on all cops, even the good ones.

    I agree with your take on the interaction between cops and citizens. That is public. In today’s high-tech world every cop ought to assume that he is always being recorded and act accordingly.

  23. where i work, the VAST majority of warrants (on a property, i am not referring to opening a box in custody, of course, even) use neither SWAT nor no-knock status.

    to give you an example of how swat oversteps their bounds (for reasons i explained ), at one point the “powers that be” (influenced by swat doods of course), came down with an edict that ALL drug warrants would use swat. that is PATENTLY absurd.

    their “rationale” was that they were too dangerous for non-swat units (ridiculous) etc. ironically, this was at a time where my unit (not swat, but a plainclothes detective street crime unit who often did warrants) was given the assignment of staking out an area where a group of armed robbers kept hitting convenience stores. so, THIS wasn’t too dangerous, but doing a raid on some 20 yr old kid selling ecstacy was?

    get real

    but of course the “experts” given credence for this policy by cop-o-crats were of course the SWAT guys and OF COURSE the swat guys were going to say ‘we are needed for all these warrants’ because it meant metric assloads of overtime for them and a justification for their expansion

    i should note i was at one of these raids with them, when one of the guys said “man, i’m tired” and told me that he had been awake for TWENTY STRAIGHT HOURS prior to this raid. why? because of raid after raid.

    you don’t have to be a physician (heck, i know it as a DUI expert witness) that staying awake for 20 hrs straight SERIOUS affects judgment, perception, fine motor control, etc.

    and of course there was NO policy saying a cop couldn’t work these kinds of hours. why? because the dept. saves money by understaffing officers and relying on them working overtime to fill the gaps (it’s much cheaper to staff 25% or so below optimal levels and pay guys to work overtime than to have the sufficient staffing. overtime gets time and a half, but there aren’t all those additional personnel costs associated with hires etc.)

    this is the kind of idiocy i deal with on a daily basis.

    to quote elvis costello: I used to be disgusted, now i try to be amused

    1. Hang in there, buddy. You are the kind of cop we need.

      1. thx man. day by day…

  24. Hey y’all, just wanted to let you know about a new Facebook group called “Friends of George Donnelly”which I encourage you to join to stay in the loop and give support to George:…..4851236607

  25. whenever I see people like you which sharing information for other peoples, I feel so glad, thanks for your information and continue your work.
    planning dissertation | dissertation

  26. Balko, maybe you ought to do a story on police departments that use measured and rational drug-raid policies, if there are any?

    I know it would be a departure from the usual, “Cops kill dogs, frighten Grandma to death at wrong address” type of story, but it might serve as a wake-up call to all the bad police departments.

    Just a thought.

  27. Videos threaten the cops ability to lie in court. The rest is conversation. As a friend of mine once observed, “Cops lie when the truth would do.”

    Kevin Mahoney

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.