Police

Cops on TV: 25 Years of Valorizing the Police State

|

Kelly Vlahos at American Conservative squints at the 25 year history of the crummy Fox TV series Cops and finds bad attitudes, and thankfully a possible end in sight.

Excerpts:

For serious viewers, hearing actual police officers like Russ Martin say things like, "just a normal day, you get to tase a man," and watching one resigned black youth after another being pig-piled and hauled off by a disproportionate number of jacked-up white cops for a couple of teeny plastic-wrapped bundles of marijuana, is not entertainment, it's a cringe-fest.

"I watch these COPS shows and they show officers violating the Fourth Amendment routinely, manhandling people, not employing the escalation/de-escalation concepts of the use of force," Stephen Downing, a retired Los Angeles deputy police chief, screenwriter and producer, told TAC.

"The public is conditioned to believe that it is okay for our police to behave in this manner—they see it in fictional movies and television and they see it on COPS, so it must be okay—until they are on the receiving end and personally experience what it is like to be the victim of police misconduct."….

But Cops may soon cease stalking the TV beat:

Over the last year, the network has gradually replaced COPS in its regular Saturday night lineup with popular FoxSports programming. In November, just before launching the 25th season, co-creator John Langley announced that the network had "slashed" the number of episodes it normally orders for the year, and that COPS' future was "uncertain and problematic."….

Tellingly, the show seems to be headed for the heap but not because people aren't watching—its prime-time episodes so far this season are still generating an average of 2.7 million viewers (though viewership is down 17 percent from last year's December premiere). According to this analysis, Fox is throwing COPS over because advertisers are willing to pay more for sports programming, indicating that while its creators still talk up the show's (disputable) social value, the network's real concern is that COPS' fanbase—as with the recently canned America's Most Wanted, now at the Lifetime network—is not the kind of audience appealing to corporate advertisers.

Vlahos details the questionable "reality" of a show where producers and cops are in cahoots, and cops get final cut. And:

the show has been the target of civil rights complaints and other grievances from the start. Its producers were accused in 2011 of coercing an 18-year-old African American boy into signing a waiver that would allow them to show his face on television after he was detained (in dramatic COPS fashion — "three knees in my back and my neck") for loitering in a Tampa county park after dark. He complained later that while handcuffed in the squad car, he was told by a COPS producer that if he didn't sign the waiver, he would go to jail.

He signed "out of fear," he told news reporters, and was soon released on a misdemeanor.  Meanwhile, he's afraid his image will be out there forever, his face on the ground. "I might not be able to get a job," he said. "They show reruns and reruns."

Well, that's the price you pay for loitering in a public park. In a sense, that young man should just be thankful the cameras were there. Who knows what might have happened to him if they hadn't been? For more context on modern American police behavior, prepare to be depressed by all this Reason coverage.

NEXT: Officer Pleads 'No Contest' After Shooting Ex-Wife

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.

  1. Well, that’s the price you pay for loitering in a public park.

    Look, Tulpa says people are morally responsible for foreseeable consequences, so that means this kid had it coming. Or something.

    1. Actually, I thought Tulpa was one of the ones that object to the Iron Law about taking responsibility for foreseeable consequences.

      1. Your point is that foreseeable consequences are not unintended. Tulpa’s point is that if you do something that might get you mistreated by the cops, even though that’s wrong, it’s your fault. Or something.

        Big difference.

        1. Let me see if I understand this. It’s foreseeable that President Obama reads this blog, since he has computer access and reads. I say insulting things about him. So it’s foreseeable that he might call in a drone strike on me. Therefore, my murder is my fault.

          1. Yep, you’ve got it!

          2. I think Tulpa would say: if a drone is flying over your house monitoring you, and you took a shot at it (or even show a gun), you’ve just signed your own death warrant and if it drops a bomb on you then you deserved it.

            1. Yeah, but that’s not Tulpa’s problem. The problem is that after some random guy gets droned in his backyard, Tulpa will accept any reasoning from the police on why he got droned. Tulpa likes to paint himself as a corrosive skeptic, but then bootlick when it comes to authority.

              Anything the cops assert is immediately suspect to anyone paying attention to how they have behaved themselves in the last 100 years.

      2. That was me. But I suspect that I disagree with your wording of it to a different degree than Tulpa (if he does at all).

        1. So if I make a reference to any historical novel, it’s just not going to work with you, is that it?

          1. If it were up to me, the Iron Law would simply state: There are no unintended consequences.

            In regards to historical novels, you history buffs scare me with your vehemence.

            1. I’m not vehement. I’m just trying to understand your alien ways.

              1. I’ve said it before, I believe that 90% of history is completely irrelevant. As such, I don’t have much interest in it. I learn what I need to learn when I need to learn it, otherwise I really have no interest.

                1. 90% of history (or more) is redundant, not irrelevant. The same patterns emerge again and again. But you need to look at a bunch of history to see that in the first place.

                  1. 90% of history (or more) is redundant, not irrelevant.

                    I’ll agree and disagree. Agree that it’s redundant, disagree that it’s not irrelevant.

                2. I don’t agree, but I won’t try to convince you. Instead, I’ll wink at others and knowingly smirk.

                  1. This was directed at Sparky, but I’m willing for Episiarch to treat it as directed at him.

                    1. I figured it was for both of us anyway.

                  2. I don’t agree, but I won’t try to convince you.

                    I appreciate that. In return, I’ll not think you’re some kind of jerk for dwelling on events of the past.

                    1. You mean, like your comment?

                    2. You mean, like your comment?

                      If you mean my comment from this morning, that was supposed to be taken as a jest. I honestly was just poking fun. As far as I’m concerned, John is the only one who turns into a giant asshole about it.

                    3. No, no, don’t go and take me seriously. I was just making a joke about your last comment being in the past. Like this one.

                    4. The past is a towel.

                    5. You’re a towel!

                    6. History is a towel with which I am struggle to dry myself.

                    7. *struggling* my old high school typing injury is acting up again.

                    8. You’ll have to speak up, I’m wearing a towel.

                    9. Quick typing bastard.

                    10. You’re a towel!

                    11. Are you still dwelling on this comment?

                    12. I’ve moved on to more current things, like my next comment.

                    13. I’ll not think you’re some kind of jerk for dwelling on events of the past.

                      Dwelling and learning are two very different things. You can not learn from something with which you have no knowledge.

                      I will not try to think of you as some kind of jerk for thinking that they don’t have anything to learn from millenia of human existence.

                      My appreciation of history carries with it the knowledge that there are very, very few original actions on the part of people or government. Knowledge of the past aides in understanding the present (how we got to where we are), and the future (where we are likely to be going).

                    14. Now you’re making me feel bad. I was just having fun with Sparky. He can dismiss history all he wants.

                    15. I will not try to think of you as some kind of jerk for thinking that they don’t have anything to learn from millenia of human existence.

                      Is it possible to form a chain of consequences backwards from the American revolution to the house of Lancaster winning the War of the Roses? Possibly. Is it relevant to the American revolution? Not really. SugarFree makes a good point below:

                      And, of course, the chain of causation has to break somewhere going backwards.

                      To say otherwise it to deny that people have the ability to think for themselves. I disagree completely that there are very few original actions.

                    16. The value of history to me is more about seeing how humans behave in different situations.

                      The U.S. was largely founded on a knowledge of classic times, particularly the Roman Republic. We adopted many of the features of their system and added some additional ones knowing where they went wrong. That’s a useful exercise in history.

            2. In regards to historical novels, you history buffs scare me with your vehemence.

              Well, I didn’t get into it this morning, but the problem with your formulation is that anything realist becomes historical fiction, say, 50 years after it’s published or whatever. That kind of expands the genre out of what most people would find useful.

              1. but the problem with your formulation is that anything realist becomes historical fiction, say, 50 years after it’s published or whatever.

                You see that as a problem, I don’t.

                1. You see that as a problem, I don’t.

                  Well, it’s not a problem for me, because I know what your category “historical fiction” includes, but it might be a problem if you talk to other people about it. The only thing I don’t understand is, why not just say that you don’t care for classic fiction? Or realist fiction?

                  I guess part of what I don’t understand here is the connection between a lack of interest in history and a lack of interest in fiction set at some historical period, regardless of whether the fiction has a particular interest in history or not. It sounds like those are just two separate things you don’t care about reading about to me. Anyway I digress. Not important.

                  1. why not just say that you don’t care for classic fiction? Or realist fiction?

                    There are some alternate world fiction stories that I actually like, but they are more modern or near future. The Word and The Void series by Terry Brooks for example. My disinterest in history just leaks into reading novels that took place in historically accurate time periods. I don’t know why, it just does.

                    1. Okay, so The Lord of the Rings would be okay, since that’s a fictionalized history. But realish history is not.

                      What about alternative reality historical fiction, like Lest Darkness Fall?

                    2. What about alternative reality historical fiction, like Lest Darkness Fall?

                      Never even heard of it. Also, LOTR is just pure fantasy as far as I’m concerned. Also, I’ve read and enjoy 1984 and Farenheit 451 which are pure alternate Earth.

                    3. Okay, I understand your erroneous parameters.

                      See, if only Episiarch had explained himself, I wouldn’t have had his name added to the Disposition Matrix.

                    4. Okay, I understand your erroneous parameters.

                      Erroneous!? *bluster*

                      Technically, 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are near future sci-fi novels.

                    5. I agree. They were writing about the future when they were written. And I like both books.

              2. Of course, the objection raised in that thread wasn’t really accurate. Dumas didn’t write The Count of Monte Cristo contemporaneously with the Napoleonic era. It was published in the 1840s.

                His The Three Musketeers clearly qualifies as historical fiction, of course, because that period was a couple of centuries prior to the writing of the novels.

        2. One of the threads where Tulpa argues against RC’s formulation.

          I disagree with them both, actually, but only slightly. I think the Law should be more in reference to likely outcomes than metaphysical certainties. And, of course, the chain of causation has to break somewhere going backwards. Ultimately the reason you hit me with your car is because I left the house this morning, but that doesn’t mean I bear any responsibility for your jumping the curb.

          Qualitative easing is a great example. They might say they never intended to drive inflation, but to claim it was not a foreseeable result is an out-right lie.

          1. I think the Law should be more in reference to likely outcomes than metaphysical certainties.

            “Foreseeability” is somewhat vague as to how likely an outcome has to be to be legitimately foreseeable, but I thought “reasonably foreseeable . . . ” was just too squishy for an Iron Law. Its an abuse of the language to say that a one in a billion chance is foreseeable, IMO.

            I still think it makes the point.

          2. Quantitative*

    2. I really don’t get Tulpa. Is he a republican, a liberal, a centrist, or what? He seems all over the place.

      1. Tulpa’s intelligence is so great that he is beyond the ability to label. Tulpa simply is, your words mean nothing to him.

        1. Tulpa’s a lovecraftian horror?

          An entity whose intellect and morality is so alien to the human that it relates to us as we do to insects?

          Is “he” squamous and rugose?

  2. I dunno. Cops gave us Troops and made me first realize that Florida has some strange people living in it.

    1. More importantly, Cops gave us Reno 911.

      1. Exactly what I was going to say.

        1. Reno 911 was a much better cop documentary than Cops

    2. I always wondered why the only Stormtroopers in the Galaxy that could hit their targets were stationed on Tatooine.

      1. It’s part of the Dune ripoff. They were Sardaukar.

    3. It also introduced several people to Inner Circle.

    4. It also gave us the “X Cops” episode of the X Files which I thought was a well-done self-parody (of both shows).

  3. Of course COPS will go out. It is the only TV show that portarys the world the way it really is. Brown people committing crimes. People getting arrested for nothing at all. “Domestic disturbances.” Police brutality. Government incompetence. No, we must be made to believe that cops are great servants of the public and our little brown brothers never committ crimes

    1. Go crawl back in the egg-sac with the rest of your inbred kin.

        1. More like a vomit of KKK spiderlings consuming their bloated mother.

      1. I took his comment the other way. I find the show appalling. It shows the world for what it is, which is a bunch of ape cops chasing and victimizing mostly horrible trash but also innocent people.

        1. This is just another incarnation of Slappy The Racist and his moronic A3P White Power cult.

          1. Ummm, no.

            1. Really, how is it different? You insist upon collectivizing people based upon their skin color. While I would certainly appreciate my cut, the fact that most billionaires are white males doesn’t reflect upon me at all, unfortunately. My good friend Tim is also disappointed about how black he is and yet still unable to dunk a basketball. Almost as if his skin pigmentation were meaningless.

              1. I have a brother who continues to marginalize my libertarian views as unrealistic and white. He is a hardcore liberal.

                They really do love to collectivize EVERYTHING.

                1. I know some cosmatarians who say that just because I don’t want my country to turn into Mexico, I’m a neo-Nazi.

              2. I insist on seeing the world the way it really is. And in that world I realize that minorities have lower average intelligence than whites. Five out of six blacks are dumber than the average white. Blacks commit over half of the murders in this country. A nation of minorities would be in all ways worse than a nation of whites. Intelligent Americans recognize this, that is why they live where they live. If they don’t want to live in a majority non-white city, why would they want to live in a non-white country? If you think they can escape it because of your wealth, think again. They’ll take your wealth, “social justice.” No evenly moderate libertarian state could survive in a non-white nation. The question is this: do you want to live in Nigeria or America?

                1. I insist on seeing the world the way it really is. And in that world I realize that minorities have lower average intelligence than whites. Five out of six blacks are dumber than the average white. Blacks commit over half of the murders in this country.

                  Even if true, what difference does it make? How does my white trash friends being of a certain pigmentation make them better neighbors, better people, better individuals than Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams? Even if we “removed” these supposedly inferior groups, we would still miss all of the actually inferior individuals who didn’t have the proscribed skin color.

                  What about eye color? Take your collective shit sucking a step farther.

                  Either blue eyed people or brown eyed people commit more crimes, have higher intelligence, etc. Should this be used to indicate the “superior races”?

                  Can you not see what a Nazi piece of shit you are? Please stop using the word and nick of “Liberty”, they do not mean what you think they mean.

          2. I’m thinking lonewacko w/o the blog-whoring. Note the intentional misspelling of substituting an “a” for an “o” in cosmotarian.

        2. Our culture can’t tolerate showing the under-world, they’d rather pretend it’s not there, because they don’t want to be asked to fix it. Seeing a bunch of diverse people stabbing each other doesn’t make a good case for immigration. Seeing mothers and fathers threatening to kill each other in the presence of their children doesn’t make a good case for the traditional family. Seeing police brutality doesn’t make a good case for the great and noble government.

          1. And dare I ask what your solution would be?

            1. This is a complex problem but there are several points I would outline. We should definently end the drug war, which provides the criminals with money and guns. We would still have a major criminality problem but it would be more manageable. Police brutality is a complex problem, who is going to police the police? At the same time we must understand that criminality is basically a cultural problem. The vast majority of criminals come from messed up, “non-traditional” backgrounds. We need a different culture, and that is the hard part because, like the WOD, we can’t just make a law and expect people to change with it. I think a major problem lies in Hollywood. It tells our children that immorality and feminism are good and actually accomplishing something in your life is “selfish.” Even more blame should be put on the millions of parents who passively accept Hollywood’s influence on their own children.

              1. The only suggestion in there that remotely approaches libertarianism is ending the war on drugs, but then you completely miss the fucking point by saying that changing the law won’t change how people act.

                The rest of your post is collectivist bullshit about how, if everyone would just conform to your way of thinking, all our problems would be solved. If only we had more Top. Men. like you in charge, everything would be perfect.

      2. Can you say such things, being from where you are from?

        1. At least I’m not some sort of Yankee.

          1. You’re talking about Episiarch, aren’t you?

            1. Of course he is. He’s obsessed with me. Just like your mom.

      3. It’s weird that having Ron Paul and Milton Freedman’s views on immigration makes me an evil racist with some of you. I think that, as a nation, we cannot survive with mass immigration in a welfare state. We’re effectively subsidizing our own destruction. Only in America can even a semblance of capitalism survive. It can’t survive in Mexico or Nigeria, and, with open borders, we’d look a lot like those countries.

        1. Fuck off, cunt.

        2. Just because we have a welfare state, is no argument to end immigration. Immigration is a moral and ethical good, and drives productivity. If a tidal wave of immigration would bankrupt the nation, at least it would stop them from spending so goddamn much.

          1. No, that it causes destruction of the traditional American culture and with it our freedoms and liberty is the argument to end immigration. Culture matters and importing hordes of 3rd world savages from alien cultures only harms traditional Americans and our freedoms.

          2. “Immigration is a moral and ethical good, and drives productivity.”
            Not if the immigrants take money out of our welfare system and send it back to their families. And while immigration theoretically increases total wealth, it decreases per-capita wealth. The fact is that with 10% unemployment among unskilled workers, we don’t need more unskilled workers. If immigrants did bankrupt the nation, it would not devolve into Anarcho-capitalism, it would devolve into Somalia. The welfare leeches will suck us dry before they let themselves grow hungry. Besides they are foreigners, who do not know about our countries history and don’t care about us, to put it the way would “whitey gots it good.”

            1. Let me translate:

              Not if the immigrants take money out of our welfare system and send it back to their families.

              The money you receive in voluntary transactions does not belong to you.

              The fact is that with 10% unemployment among unskilled workers, we don’t need more unskilled workers.

              All workers are interchangeable, and no individuals have redeeming qualities which set them apart from the other workers.

              Besides they are foreigners, who do not know about our countries history and don’t care about us, to put it the way would “whitey gots it good.

              A person’s knowledge, experiences, and opinions are entirely determined by his country of origin, and hence by the government thereof.

              In other words, you’re a national socialist. Fuck off, slaver.

    2. I always wondered to myself what the end result would be of a boy who watched his Mom get whored out to Mexican construction workers. Apparently it makes you post racist crap on the internet.

      Liberty, I am deeply, deeply sorry I pimped your mom out like that. In fairness, I did let her keep 10% of the five bucks I received for it.

  4. In a sense, that young man should just be thankful the cameras were there.

    What does that matter? I’m sure that plenty of incriminating police behavior is recorded by the producers of the show, but somehow manages to be lost or deleted. Just like dash cam footage. It’s not like an independent civilian organization is involved. It’s cops recording cops. If they record themselves doing something that they should be doing they’ll just pretend it didn’t happen. Who’s going to prove them wrong?

    1. The cameraman are usually professionals. I’d bet they would still delete incriminating content, though.

      1. Of course. The moment they didn’t delete something incriminating the show would be over due to lack of cooperation. Who’s going to go on that show willingly without knowing they have the final cut?

        1. The moment a cameraman refused to delete something he’d get his ass beaten and his camera smashed. What’s he going to do, call the cops?

      2. Interesting note: When David Blane filmed his first TV special, he used the COPS camera crew.

    2. Besides, without the cameras those cops may never have bothered to stop the kid. They might’ve just drove off to the Starbucks or something. But with the cameras on they needed to look busy. They needed to look like they were getting shit done.

      Either way, it’s clear this kid was just a victim of it being a slow night.

      1. “Haven’t I seen you last week?” seems to be a standard COPS line.

      2. no shit. on To Catch A Predator I saw one guy leaving the house and all 12 cops yelling for him to get down. he complied and was on his knees with his hands on his head when they tased him anyway because, hey, they were on TV.

  5. I’d love to see a successor show, produced and narrated by Henry Rollins.

  6. Or Henrietta Collins, even better.

    1. 😉

      Perfect!

  7. Cops was a good show.You could learn a lot about how to act and not act around them by watching it (if you didn’t already know).

  8. Funny, I always thought that COPS made the police look really bad, violent and unprofessional. It always kind of amazed me that police departments would allow COPS to film them as it made them look like suck giant assholes. Do people really watch that show and think that those guys are doing a good job?

    1. “such giant assholes”

      Though they do also suck giant assholes.

    2. Do people really watch that show and think that those guys are doing a good job?

      That’s a rhetorical question, right?

      1. Not really, no. The article seemed to be saying that COPS was valorizing or promoting the police, which I never saw when I watched the show.

        1. I suspect that at least 2/3 of the people who watch the show believe that cops are the awesomest of awesome.

        2. I agree, Zeb.

          Cops is not watched because people think the cops are valorous, but because they want to see the Jerry Springer type human train wrecks that are being arrested.

          Only someone who has never seen the show or is completely out of touch would think that the show somehow praises the police. Oh, Doherty wrote it. So, like I said.

    3. Actually, it was watching COPS that first got me questioning the war on drugs. Watching 5 or 6 cops in some crime-infested city spend a couple of hours busting people for smoking dope didn’t seem to be wise for all kinds of reasons.

  9. There are far more egregious examples of cop-loving shows and movies.
    I thought COPS was about showing how dumb people were.

    1. I would say super cop shows like CSI are a lot worse than COPS.

      1. Scary thought, but you could be right.

      2. THIS, a million times.

        CSI makes people think that state forensics people are gods with incredible Star Trek magic technology, when in reality they’re Annie Dookhan fuckups stamping paperwork that says they inspected enough shit to clear the backlog or make quota.

        Do you know how many hours of programming it would take to make a computer do ONE of the neat little magical guilt-proving animations they undertake on CSI with two mouse clicks?

        1. Even the non-science fiction shows are just as bad. About every third episode of any of the Law and Orders showed the detectives lying about hearing screaming so they could kick down a door without getting a warrant, or lying to get someone to grant them access for a warrantless search, or exceeding the parameters of a search warrant. (Not to mention the constant police brutality of Elliot on SVU.)

          1. But this is what people want. They want the known good guy (the cops) to put the beatdown on the known bad guy. Because everything is known. There is no doubt.

            The only show I’ve seen in a long time that even raised doubt was the soon-canceled The Defenders. Because people like things to be obvious and spelled out and who to root for.

            One reason The Shield was so good was that Vic was a piece of shit, so when he was committing police brutality you weren’t rooting for him.

            1. I manage to watch most cop shows by reminding myself they are fantasy. Objecting to the pure-hearted cops on tv shows would be as silly as whiny about how dragons never existed when watching Game of Thrones.

              1. I can’t stand most cop shows, just because even if they’re fantasy, they’re obnoxious fantasy. I’m getting kind of tired of Raylin’s shit on Justified at this point too, and that’s the only cop show I watch. Well, that and Luther, which is really bad about this stuff.

                1. Even in the incredibly consequence-free world of law enforcement, Raylin would have been fired years ago.

            2. The only show I’ve seen in a long time that even raised doubt was the soon-canceled The Defenders. Because people like things to be obvious and spelled out and who to root for.

              Raising the Bar was really good too and I was sad to see it get cancelled.

            3. One reason The Shield was so good was that Vic was a piece of shit, so when he was committing police brutality you weren’t rooting for him.

              I disagree. When he was getting the “bad guys” most people rooted for him and only the Libertarian minded were bothered. It was only the collateral damage that ever bothered most people. The scary thing about The Shield is how many people would be very willing to tolerate a real-life Vic, as long as they thought he was “getting the bad guys”. Collateral damage probably isn’t going to get you but you will be “protected” so it is OK.

        2. I’ve had a couple of criminal defense attorneys say that CSI has made “forensic” evidence nearly impossible to challenge.

        3. I’ve made it a personal policy not to watch any TV shows or movies about public servants. I made an exception for The Wire though. I may make another exception for Yes, Minister but at least that isn’t taking place in the country I reside in.

          1. You should also consider making an exception for The Thick of It. It’s like The Office but with MPs.

    2. Calm and polite people who didn’t get caught in obvious lies usually went on there way (sometimes with an apology too!). People who trusted the cops to go easy on them if they confessed to a crime or gave up the dope went to jail.

      Those are two of the most important lessons you can learn right after “avoid cops at all cost”.

    3. I thought COPS was about showing how dumb people were.

      Yeah. A show about what happens to people who are dumb enough to call the cops.

      1. I was actually thinking about America’s Dumbest Criminals when I posted that
        Another show that made cops look better than they were.

  10. Scripted police procedurals do a far worse job in glorifying the police than COPS, which as others have pointed out, at least depicts reality and lets you draw your own conclusion as to whether cops do a good job.

    1. Yes a scripted procedural where the squad is up against an unending parade of mouth breathing morons and drunks wouldn’t exactly wow the audience.

  11. Just think: this is the stuff these thuggish brutes do when there are TV cameras with them.

    1. “thuggish brutes”
      Somebody’s been watching too much Downton Abbey.

      1. Never saw it. And the late Victorian/Edwardian period is fucking boring anyhoo.

        1. Really? Nothing interesting at all happened then?

  12. Here’s a clip from the Canadian version of COPS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8xueP6Fy1o

    1. I remember seeing footage of some hockey riot in Montreal and the riot police were but one cop in full riot gear on a horse still helped a couple of tourists by giving them directions.

      1. The cops were just there to keep the riot fun and positive.

    2. Damn, the Canadians ARE nicer than Americans — cops and punkers both.

      If that were COPS, there’d be 25 kids in jail and 3 or 4 in the hospital.

      Still, Propaghandi really blows. Talk about your politically-correct “punk” pussy band. The Propaghandi t-shirt was the only offensive thing on the whole clip.

      1. http://www.google.com/imgres?h…..2,s:0,i:91

        There is always this. Damn that girl has nice legs and a nice ass.

        1. Is that Pearle Harbor?

          1. Jesus Christ Tim, it was funny once or maybe twice. But not ten times. We get it. I used the wrong spelling of the word. Hahaha. You have met your daily quota for snark.

            Now move along.

            1. I’ll be the judge of that.

      2. Here’s a little Canadian hardcore from Asexuals: Be What You Want.

        1. There we go.

  13. Here’s a bit that would have made the cutting room floor.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..d-cam.html

  14. Seems to me COPS is running out of steam because crime is down (unless you live in Chicago, but they never film there). Still I watch the show, must be some sadomasochistic condition or so.

    1. Crime, except for murder and forcible rape, was up in 2012.
      http://www.businessinsider.com…..ats-2013-1

      1. Consensual rape is way up, however.

      2. And yet violent crime is at a 35-year low. Funny that.

  15. I think most cops are good people, but, much like teachers, there is an ethos of always sticking up for each other whenever anyone questions anything. There are plenty of bad cops, many of them ex-military who treat their citizens like they were trained to treat the peasants of Iraq. The refusal of police and their unions to oppose these people colors the entire profession.

    1. I dunno. I would think that ex-military who have seen the death and destruction of war would be more restrained than Johnny football hero whose goal in life is to kill a dirtbag criminal.

      1. Liberty is a fucking moron.

    2. “like they were trained to treat the peasants of Iraq”

      Just fuck your mother now and get it over with, m’kay?

  16. I think most cops are good people…

    Even the black ones, the Asian ones, Latino ones, gay ones? What about cops who are single parents, or divorced?

    1. Just because I don’t like single parenthood and other markers of our sick society doesn’t mean I hate everyone who is involved in it. In my ideal society every child would have a family who cares about them. However that’s not a standard I hold everyone to. Many good people participate in our sick zeitgeist, they do it because there isn’t much alternative. I realize that had I not been shunned in school I might be a miserable idiot right now. But just because I don’t hate people doesn’t mean I hold them to no standards. It is a classic liberal viewpoint that unless you totally accept people’s destructive lifestyles and agree to subsidize them, you hate them.

      1. “Just because I don’t like single parenthood”

        Liberty doesn’t like the life choices of others. That’s rich!

        1. Being a parasite dependent on welfare paid for by me and who raises a child to be a welfare dependent criminal is a “life choice.” That’s rich.

          1. Everyone who raises children as a single parent is on welfare? That’s rich.

      2. It is a classic liberal viewpoint that unless you totally accept people’s destructive lifestyles and agree to subsidize them, you hate them.

        And again, where in the pages of Reason articles, or within the comments sections have you seen anybody advocating subsidizing peoples destructive (or constructive!) lifestyles? And why do you racialize every example of “destructive lifestyles”? As a libertarian, I am fine with the fact that you are racist. Live and let live, as it were. But you continually hit these boards and argue that libertarians and anarchists should collectivize segments of the population. It’s not us vs. them. It is about the individual, and their right to make individual choices. Just because you find some people’s choices distasteful, doesn’t mean we should engage in collectivist against those people.

        1. “racialize every example of “destructive lifestyles”
          Race is important in our society. I was talking about single parenthood and other markers of our sick society, such as 1/5 of women being infected with herpes. I suppose you could interpret being a single mother as a “black” thing, but a large portion of white Americans do this as well.

          “collectivize segments of the population.”
          I don’t even know what that means.

          “It’s not us vs. them.”
          Yes, it is. It’s those of us who produce versus those of us who don’t.

          “we should engage in collectivist against those people.”
          I don’t know what that means. I’m not advocating any laws. I want the culture to change. Is advocating one choice over another “collectivist?” Is caring about your society “collectivist?”

          1. “collectivize segments of the population.”
            I don’t even know what that means.

            It means you take segments of the population (single mothers, or people with venereal disease) and ascribe the same characteristics to them without regard to the individual, their circumstances, their abilities. You ascribe to them a collective identity.

            I’m not advocating any laws.

            Fair enough. Thanks.

            I want the culture to change. Is advocating one choice over another “collectivist?” Is caring about your society “collectivist?”

            No. You want to change society. Great. How exactly do you propose to do so? If you are coming here to promote the virtues of marriage, parenthood, and sexual integrity, great. Again, this is a libertarian website. Not libertine.

  17. The Palm Springs episode:

    Cop doing his intro talk-schtick in the squad car: “There’s a guy on a bicycle with a backpack. Burglars carry backpacks – that’s where they keep their tools. I’m going to check him out.”

    Pulls bicyclist over.

    Guy on bike: “Why are you stopping me?”

    Cop: “You don’t have your light on.” (It’s night)

    Guy points to light: “It’s right here.”

    Cop: “It’s not bright enough – I can’t see it.”

    Cop eventually finds drugs in the guy’s backpack!

    1. Or finds drugs somewhere and the guy’s backpack was in the vicinity. Hey, fuck you.

  18. I really love the theme song though. They’re talking about the coppers, right?

  19. After reading through this thread, I am 99% sure “Liberty” is the reincarnation of “American”

    1. Or “Patriot”. Once Merkin mentioned being banned before, and I don’t see “Merkin is Back” now either.

  20. Man have they really been on for 25 years? Amazing!

    http://www.make-anon.tk

    1. And Dumbphry has maintained his chubby the entire time.

  21. da best episode of da cops was when mulder n scully had 2 chase a warewolf

  22. ps- no one really actually watches cops, the neilsen data is from all da ppl who tune in for the tight theme song and then flip da channel once its over.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.