Police Abuse

Man Charged With Assault for Yelling at Police Dog

|

Port Clinton K-9
Facebook

A sixty-year-old Port Clinton, Ohio, man someone called police on for stumbling while walking home with his bike ended up arrested after he refused to produce identification, and was charged with multiple petty narcotics crimes, as well as disorderly conduct (public intoxication) and assaulting a police dog. Did the man hit or kick the dog? No such thing, via the Port Clinton News Herald:

At the police station, he reportedly began yelling at the Port Clinton police K-9, Spike, causing the dog to become agitated and bark, officers said. He then repotedly [sic] continued to yell profanities at the dog and then made comments containing profanity to officers, according to the report.

As if more evidence cops consider themselves, and are considered (by some civilians and the political class) as above the law that applies to people like you and me. Rarely are cops who kill dogs (or unfortunately people, for that matter) charged with any crime.

Advertisement

NEXT: Watch This: FSU Student's Film Shows Craziness of Craft Beer Laws in 'A Story So True, It's Stupid'

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. Tin Soldiers & Nixon’s coming…

    1. The gang currently in charge make Tricky Dick look like a choir boy.

      1. Will we ever be finally on our own?

  2. So, a ‘civilian’ yelling at a police dog carries a heavier penalty than a cop shooting an unarmed teenager, is what I’m getting based on the past few days.

    1. So, a ‘civilian’ yelling at a police dog carries a heavier penalty than a cop shooting an unarmed teenager, is what I’m getting based on the past few days.

      If I were this man’s attorney, in my closing arguments (not that this will ever go before a jury), I would say exactly that.

      1. (not that this will ever go before a jury)

        Why not? That would require the prosecutor to tell the cops (on whom they depend to make or break cases) that the cops are idiots.

        1. Because it’s an offense punishable by less than 6 months in prison. The state isn’t obligated to provide a jury trial for such offenses. Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).

    2. By George, I think he’s got it.

  3. A sixty-year-old Port Clinton, Ohio, man someone called police on for stumbling while walking home with his bike

    What the fuck is wrong with people?

    1. I don’t know the profile of the person arrested but I’m guessing stumbling while the wrong color in that neighborhood?

      1. *I don’t know the profile of the person arrested but I’m guessing stumbling while the wrong color in that neighborhood?*

        Yeah, that HAS to be it. There can be NO OTHER REASON, literally none.

        What is this, DailyKos?

        1. Yeah, ’cause opposing racism is something only progressives do?

          I don’t think so.

          1. You’d have to have actual evidence of racism in order to oppose it, I’d think.

            1. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being on the lookout for racism.

              If concern about racism really becomes a partisan issue? We’re screwed.

              And it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a lot of people (present company excluded, for course) started denying its existence.

              …like it was climate change or something.

              Speculating that race may have played a role in this is just as valid as speculating that it didn’t. And either way, there isn’t anything especially Republican, Democrat, or libertarian about being on either side of that.

              Speculating that there may have been a racial motive certainly doesn’t make anyone a Daily Kos proglodyte.

              1. Unless you’ve been to Port Clinton. Then you’d know that race was not a factor.

              2. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being on the lookout for racism.

                I do. It smacks of Puritanism and makes it so that one is always needing to be on guard against a baseless charge of racism — a charge that can have serious social and governmental consequences. If you’re going to cry wolf, you should know what a wolf actually looks like and be damn sure that what you saw was a wolf. Otherwise you’re stuck in Botard territory, jumping at the Vast Racist/SOCON/[Evil Other] Conspiracy, which is no way to live life or organize a society.

                If there’s something to the charge, that’s one thing. If not, then don’t make the charge without evidence. Easy rule to follow, right there.

                1. One of the reasons why they use that tactic is because the left has made it seem like they’re the only ones that care about racism.

                  They’ll keep using the charge until it stops working, and it won’t stop working until the rest of us start actively expressing contempt for racism.

                  The charge of racism isn’t going to go away on its own. It’s not like the left didn’t think to use it until we started expressing contempt for racism.

                  1. I already have contempt for racism. I just have no interest in fabricating it or supposing it as a motivation in the absence of evidence. The idea that one has to do so in order to truly “care” about racism is a noxious one which harms others, and is also a way for the left to measure who is leftist enough. “Caring” about racism is a status game between whites in American society, and I decline to participate. Participation in this silly status game merely provides power to those who are best at the game — and since the left created the game, they tend to win it.

                2. Otherwise you’re stuck in Botard territory, jumping at the Vast Racist/SOCON/[Evil Other] Conspiracy, which is no way to live life or organize a society.

                  Actually, I’m a lot more worried about the vast progtard conspiracy to label everyone who disagrees with them a racist.

                  1. It’s seeping into libertarian and conservative circles too unfortunately.

      2. Everyone is Port Clinton is the same color. Not a lot of diversity in Ottawa county…

    2. I think it’s the law of unintended consequences. “Oh look, that guy stumbled. I’ll call the cops to help. They’re public servants, right…?”

      1. We need some kind of private cop force to call for things like non-crime trouble, assistance, and, I dunno, crime prevention.

        1. Regulators?

        2. I was thinking “neighbors”.

          1. “Neighbors” had crossed my mind as well. They were helpful, once, and in some places still are.

        3. This is essentially the bulk of the work of private security guards. Big companies and malls are especially big users. They don’t want people getting arrested on their property for petty shit, or getting beaten, so their security guards tend to be instructed to make the problem go away. Problem is that if there is a free solution, why would you pay?

          1. To avoid getting shot, abused, arrested, or otherwise oppressed?

    3. A sixty-year-old Port Clinton, Ohio, man someone called police on for stumbling while walking home with his bike

      I call bullshit. The police saw him and are lying about someone calling them about the guy.

      1. They can request the call

    4. They aren’t paying attention and still believe the police protect and serve.

  4. Chances are the dog was yelling at the suspect, too.

  5. he reportedly began yelling at the Port Clinton police K-9, Spike, causing the dog to become agitated and bark, officers said. He then repotedly [sic] continued to yell profanities at the dog and then made comments containing profanity to officers, according to the report.

    WAR ON COPZ

    OFFICER SAFETY

    This is why Port Clinton needs an APC and body armor for their noble service animals.

    1. To protect all 6000 residents!

  6. I’m pretty much at the point now where I think that police should be prohibited from using dogs at all. We know that drug sniffing dogs aren’t worth a shit and only serve as a ready-made excuse for bypassing the Fourth Amendment and fucking up people’s cars. I’m guessing bomb sniffing ones are similar.

    And there’s absolutely no reason to have attack dogs. If you’re so much of a pussy that you need to unleash a dog on someone, then don’t put the uniform on.

    1. Worse than that. most of them are such pussies that THEY BECAME COPS!!!

      Biggest fucking pussies in the world…

    2. “I’m pretty much at the point now where I think that police should be prohibited from using dogs at all.”

      But the cops have a Constitutional right to sic dogs on us…or something.

      Come to think of it, ever notice that when there’s a tragic shooting the left always calls for taking gun away from private individuals, but when there’s an unjustified shooting by a cop, they never call for disarming the police?

      Seems to be a double standard, there.

      1. “But they’re the police. they’re on our side! obey!”

        /prog

      2. “unjustified shooting by a cop”?

        Never heard of one of those.

      3. When a cop unjustifiably kills someone, it’s just a rogue individual, and not an indictment against police culture.

        When there is a tragic shooting by a private citizen, that’s an indictment against society in general, and not just a rogue individual.

      4. Well, police in Europe have guns, so it must be OK.

        1. They do have guns, but use them in a controlled and disciplined manner.

          “German Police Used Only 85 Bullets Against People in 2011”

          from thewire dot com
          http://tinyurl.com/mvof32b

          German original here, Der Spiegel
          http://tinyurl.com/7kf3vpy

          1. German Police Used Only 85 Bullets Against People in 2011

            Hell, that’s a slow night in LA.

    3. The problem with drug sniffing dogs, I believe, is more that they are completely inappropriate to use as probable cause for a search than that they are useless for finding drugs. The false positives are the problem, not false negatives. Dogs are pretty good at identifying and following odors. They are also very good at doing whatever it takes to please their masters.
      Of course there shouldn’t be any reason to have drug sniffing dogs in the first place.

      1. Also, if you need a dog to sniff out a crime, it can’t be that disruptive to society.

        1. Mostly, yes. Bomb sniffing dogs might be an exception in some circumstances. Though even then you have the “probably cause machine” problem still.

      2. “They are also very good at doing whatever it takes to please their masters.”

        The Clever Hans Effect:A horse in Germany seemed to be able to do arithmetic. It was shown that the horse was responding to signals unconsciously given by his owner.

        Similar effects have been observed in drug sniffing dogs, which is worth keeping in mind when on jury duty.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

        1. Yep. And dogs are even better attuned to people than horses are.

          I wouldn’t vote to convict anyone on any drug charge no matter what.

        2. Too bad the nine whores in black robes didn’t consider Clever Hans when deciding that dogs were the perfect end-run around the Fourth Amendment.

      3. They are also very good at doing whatever it takes to please their masters.

        That makes them ideal police.

  7. We need some kind of private cop force to call for things like non-crime trouble, assistance, and, I dunno, crime prevention.

    There’s never a Boy Scout around when you need one.

    1. Brooks, now that Scout on Scout sex is OK, they really don’t have time for that kind of thing.

      1. “I haven’t had this much sex since I was a Boy Scout leader!”

  8. This reminds me when I was in Johannesburg at the Apartheid Museum documenting the Soweto Uprising. Supposedly the shooting started when a black youth hit a police dog with a stone. The tour guide said in unbelieving tone that back then, “attacking a police dog is the same as attacking an officer”.

    I told him that in the US, attacking a police dog will get you more years in jail than attacking a civilian human. He couldn’t believe it.

  9. Now, now, folks. I think you’re missing the important point here. What about the poor heroic dog in blue? I mean, the poor thing’s going to need trauma counseling for a week. How can you expect the poor darling to thrive at following it’s trainer’s cues to find illicit contraband when it’s got all the stress and psycho-social issues of having a drunk yell at it on its mind?

    1. Did he yell racial epithets at the dog?

      1. He called it a son of a bitch.

        1. The question is whether the dog was racist.

          Does the dog bark harder or more often at people of certain ethnicity?

          What was the ethnicity of the suspect?

          You know, treating everyone the same dishonestly papers over the legacy of racism in this country.

  10. Did the dog come home safe after his shift?

    1. Physically, yes. But, the psychological scars never heel so quickly….

      1. *whacks you on the nose with a newspaper for punning in the corner*

        1. Go ahead do it, he won’t roll over.

      2. That’s a doggone shame

  11. why are the police using pit bulls?

  12. Good thing the guy was walking the bike, or the cops may have charged him with DUI.

    1. I’m surprised they still didn’t. I mean, if you can be charged with DUI for sleeping in your car, surely you can be charged with DUI for walking your bike.

      1. I got charged with DUI on a bicycle after being hit by a car that ran a red light.

        1. What the-?

          Tell me the charges were dropped, for the sake of my sanity.

          1. Plead down to Reckless Driving and had to fix the car that hit me.

            Despite their being a bunch of witnesses telling the cop what happened, the report made no mention of the fact that the kid who hit me ran a red light. It said that I caused the accident.

            That was the part that pissed me off. Having to fix the fucking car because the cop lied on the report.

            1. *there*

            2. What the actual living fuck. Sorry to hear it, duder.

            3. The cop gets more brownie points for any DUI than he gets for offenses that are actual harmful to another human being.

              Jobs that are remunerated on perverse incentives will eventually only be filled by perverse people.

            4. Reports were written, procedures were followed, totality of circs, hth. Smooches!

  13. Port Clinton is a weird dumpy little vacation town. I’m sure they make a ton of money shaking down drunk tourists.

  14. What’s that old saying? “The only real crime is lese majeste”? You can’t yell at the King’s dog, because that shows disrespect for the King.

  15. LAPD accused of shooting dead unarmed black man as he was lying down just days after Michael Brown’s death in Missouri

    Ezell Ford, 25, was shot dead by officers in South Los Angeles
    His family say Mr Ford was complying with police orders
    Mr Ford was taken to hospital but later died of his injuries
    A Facebook page calling for justice for Ezell Ford has now been set up
    Rally has been organised for Sunday at 3pm at LAPD headquarters

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..souri.html
    Shot in the back while lying with his face on the pavement. Will anything else happen?

    1. I’m sure that after a full and fair investigation, all of the facts will come out and the police officer involved will be puni…. I’m sorry, I couldn’t go any further.

    2. Do you think they remembered to sprinkle crack on him?

      1. The kid had mental issues. That will likely be their excuse.

        1. He was so mentally challenged that his way of threatening the police was by lying face down without a weapon!

    3. Possibly more riots, considering that St Louis is having them currently.

      1. I think that is a good bet. I hate the rioters. It is, however, going to be entertaining watching these assholes face the choice of actually holding one of their own accountable for something or watching the city burn down.

        1. Would anyone really care? I mean, it’s LA…

          1. The people of St. Louis will care. At some point they will get tired of the mobs rioting and looting an demand the cops do something about this case.

            1. Rioting is just silly. There have been 100s of riots and the cops are more out of control than ever.

              1. There have been very few big riots. And the 1992 LA riots resulted in the cops in that case going to prison. Do you really think they would have if there hadn’t been riots? I don’t.

                1. And somehow, the cops in LA still find a way to shoot an unarmed kid in the back…

                  1. So what? That didn’t help the cops who went to jail. If it takes frying one cop to stop the city from rioting, they will fry that one cop, even if they go back to business as usual when things calm down.

                    1. I hope they will. I wish that had been the case in Cincinnati.

                2. Inspector Kemp counsels potential rioters:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8PLepHKj4k

            2. At some point they will get tired of the mobs rioting and looting an demand the cops do something about this case.

              Right now they are tired of the police and government rioting and looting and demanding the citizens take action.

        2. The thing is, riots and pent up anger are easily catalyzed. If the cops shoot a few innocent people the same way within a few days of each other, and riots start, they’re going to spread. And it’s because the cops are too stupid, thuggish, and murderous to realize that when they get their kill on.

          1. Yup. Once a riot breaks out and you cross the line where people realize they can loot and burn shit and get away with it, there is no controlling it as the criminal element flocks to the scene to take advantage of it.

            1. The criminal element is the one that shoots an unarmed person with their hands up.

      2. The bigger problem here is that cops have destroyed so much of their credibility with the public that it is going to be impossible to have a fair trial to determine what happened.

        I assume the cop here is at fault, but I don’t know. The cop may actually have been in the right here. Finding that out is why we have trials. Thanks to the police’ complete disregard for any standards of accountability or behavior, the community is so angry that it is likely impossible to have a fair trial over this. If they ever charge the cop, nothing short of a murder one conviction will satisfy the mob no matter what facts are revealed at trial.

        Since cops have refused to submit themselves to the justice system, we now effectively have trial by mob. Isn’t that great?

        1. It’s an inevitable result of the kind of position and power the cops have. It’s an inevitable result of government, because government gets out of control and eventually the mob reins it in. Like, oh, say, the French Revolution.

          1. If the government won’t do justice and the public gets angry enough, ultimately the mob will.

          2. Who gets to be our Napoleon though? I hope it’s not joe, but he’s certainly short enough.

            1. I always knew you were a heightist, Warty. Napoleon was actually around 5’7″, which was taller than the average European of his time. He appeared shorter because he required all of his bodyguards to be at least 6 feet tall.

        2. The bigger problem here is that cops have destroyed so much of their credibility with the public that it is going to be impossible to have a fair trial to determine what happened.

          Yet you can bet that a jury will acquit if it goes to trial.

          1. I bet not. Did the federal jury in the Rodney King case acquit? The threat of a mob burning down the city and your name and address being put out on social media trumps any number of uniformed goons you want to cram into the viewing gallery.

            1. I bet not. Did the federal jury in the Rodney King case acquit?

              Only after a second trial. And Kelly Thomas’ murderers are still on the job.

              1. No one rioted after the Thomas case. And the second trial was AFTER the riot in LA. If the riots continue, they will fry that cop to get them to stop regardless of whether he is guilty or not.

              2. Evan Roach is still a police officer in the Cincinnati area and he straight up murdered Tom Thomas. The riots had little to no affect here. Except they ruined downtown for like 8 years.

                1. Black Blood,

                  That is a good counter example. At some point, someone is just going to murder one of these cops who gets off. It is just a matter of time.

                  1. It’s happened down here but they never publicize it. Cop gets killed and they say the investigation didn’t turn up anything. don’t want to glorify the retribution.

        3. At the very least, every cop who kills or injures someone should go before a grand jury. OR something like that. It should be completely out of the hands of the agency they work for, anyway.

          1. At the very least to make it look like they give a fuck…

        4. There are reports of cops strong-arming people who recorded the shooting with their cell phones into surrendering their phones and signing waivers that said they did so voluntarily.

          That tells me all I need to know about who’s in the wrong: The cops.

    4. Shot in the back while lying with his face on the pavement.

      That would be called an execution-style killing if the cop were the one shot to death.

  16. Speaking of people I don’t like.

    The law also requires the creation of an online portal for private sales to close the existing loophole. Background checks have been required nationwide since November 1993, when former President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law after battling a lengthy struggle to pass the legislation. But the decades-old measure doesn’t apply to about 40% of total gun sales that occur each day because of loopholes in the system.

    1: Sure it doesn’t.
    2: What editor allowed this terrible writing to get past him? “This law closes a loophole that allows this stuff to get through loopholes in the system.”

    1. Mass already had some pretty terrible gun laws. It’s probably right after CA and NJ for really terrible gun laws.

      1. Worst part about living here, by far.

    2. I read in article in the Cincinnati Enquierer that, no shit, said–

      The fears that Obamacare would raise premiums by double digits may not be warranted. Premiums are expected to rise an average of only 14% in the next year.

      1. Do you have to be retarded to be a reporter now?

        1. I’m starting to think they give IQ tests first…but they rank them like golf scores.

          1. They must. Either that or the rumors about the schools no longer teaching and in fact actively working to destroy critical thinking skills are true. These people are so stupid they can’t even write coherent propaganda.

          2. They follow the same guidelines as police exams.

          3. A school of education is where you go when you can’t hack a real major. A school of journalism is where you go when you can’t hack a school of education.

      2. Are they unclear on the word “double,” or the word “digit”?

    3. I hate the MSNBC hack who wrote that article almost as much as I do Patrick.

      The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety.

      Because if the police determine that you are a threat to public safety, you by definition are.

      And there there is this

      One of those measures, approved in 2010, allows district attorneys the ability to request hearings for individuals charged with carrying an illegal firearm or possessing a gun after being convicted of a felony. A year later, he launched an initiative that aims to eliminate youth violence throughout his state.

      So I guess youth violence has been eliminated in Massachusetts? If not, then isn’t Patrick’s program a failure?

      And that is a “news” story.

      1. The annoying liberal assumptions the hack has in his writing are to be expected, although they’re annoying. I’m more bothered by the general terribleness of the writing. It’s embarrassing.

        1. It really is. Just take this sentence

          One of those measures, approved in 2010, allows district attorneys the ability to request hearings for individuals charged with carrying an illegal firearm or possessing a gun after being convicted of a felony.

          One of those measures? As opposed to two of them?

          Allows district attorneys the ability? So I guess “being allowed the ability” is different than having it?

          To request hearings? Hearings for what?

          How about this instead?

          The measures approved in 2010 grant district attorneys the power to request expedited adjudication of felons charged with illegally possessing a firearm

          I am pretty sure that is what he meant to write, though the sentence is so bad it is impossible to tell for certain.

          1. You missed your calling. You should have been teaching Latin to Jewish revolutionaries. “The people called Romans, they go to the house??”

          2. My nephew did sports reporting part time for a couple years. He said he could not recognize his own writing under his bylines, the editors changed things so much. He said facts were changed to make the stories sound better. And this is friggin’ high school volleyball!

  17. A sixty-year-old Port Clinton, Ohio, man someone called police on for stumbling while walking home with his bike ended up arrested after he refused to produce identification, and was charged with multiple petty narcotics crimes, as well as disorderly conduct (public intoxication) and assaulting a police dog.

    What an awkwardly-written lead-in….

    1. Also the coordinating conjunction is improper.

      1. What the hell is wrong with our editors?

        1. Not to mention the comma after Ohio. The passive voice is really strange here. Also, there is a lack of parallel structure in the list. Assaulting should be assault of to keep the structure consistent.

          Why not say “someone called the police on a man who was stumbling while walking his bike home. He was subsequently arrested when he refused to produce ID. He was charged with multiple petty narcotics crimes, disorderly conduct, and assault on a police dog.”

          There, was that so hard?

    2. What the hell is wrong with our society? Who the hell calls the police because they see someone stumble as they walk by? The person who called the cops really is a dreg of humanity.

      1. Who the hell calls the cops because asking a neighbor to quiet down is too hard?

        People suck.

        1. One thing that I like about living in a town without a police department is that my neighbors can’t call the cops on me for making noise. There aren’t any state laws against noise. Those are local ordinances. State troopers and sheriffs don’t give a shit about local ordinances.

          So I can shoot guns all day and light off fireworks all night!

          My neighbors love me.

          1. As I mentioned in another thread, shooting the guns would be a problem where I live. Even more than the “he’s loud but I don’t want to speak to him like an adult”.

            1. My neighbors are noisy. The guy across the street is a gear head. It’s not unusual for him to burn tires until the entire road is filled with smoke. The guy to the north likes fireworks and the guy to the south likes guns.

      2. What the hell is wrong with our society? Who the hell calls the police because they see someone stumble as they walk by?

        Nobody. That’s the whole point, the police are probably lying about getting a call.

        Even if there was an actual call, it was probably from someone on the town payroll.

        1. That is probably a pretty good guess.

        2. I don’t know. I used to regularly read the local police logs in the newspaper and people call the cops about some seriously stupid shit.

    1. Ann Althouse’s husband keeps a great blog of dog pictures

      http://thepuparazzo.blogspot.com/

      Guy did alright for himself. He married a woman making a law profs salary and he gets to spend his days at the dog park taking pictures. Not a bad gig if you can get it.

  18. Wait, so yelling profanities at police (and police dogs) is against the law? Speaking, as long as you are not threatening or causing panic isn’t against the law. I would sue for wrongful arrest. If a cop stops me and I say what do you want, dickhead. I cannot legally be put into jail, as that isn’t against the law.

    1. I know people who have been arrested for telling cops to go fuck themselves. They call it “verbal assault.” The law is whatever they say it is, because fuck you that’s why.

      1. So, assault means nothing now, I guess. If they had said “I am going to fuck you”, maybe. But at worst “go fuck yourself” is incitement to self abuse.

    2. I knew another guy who got his ass kicked by the cops for giving them the finger. They didn’t arrest him, they just beat him up and left.

      1. Well wasn’t that thoughtful of them!

      2. Ah, the good old days when police were less psychotic.

      3. “Remember, the officer doesn’t determine the level of force used, the suspect does!”

      4. Because if the cops arrest him, that’s prior restraint of his First Amendment rights and he’s gonna get paid. I believe the last lesson the Pittsburg PD got cost the taxpayers $80K plus legal expenses.

    3. I got court in Nashville in a couple of weeks for a resisting charge for basically talking shit to the cops all night after a fight. There was absolutely no physical resistance whatsoever on my part, but apparently telling the cops that you’re more of a man then they are is frowned upon.

      Also, this is why I rarely drink.

  19. Warty pegged it correctly above. Port Clinton is a strange town. This is a place where hotels are allowed to ransack your cooler for beer. Beer found? Confiscated. Very fucking strange town I spent much of my youth fishing on the various piers oblivious to the fact that brainless chumps run the town. The fact that I was trapped in a religious cult against my young will hid the reality of the intellectual barrenness called Port Clinton, Ohio.

    Ohio has some Liberties issues. You’d never know it by the fucking stupidity of Bike Week in Sandusky where thousands of fucking morons on bikes show up to get fucked up while the local Gestapo gets their cumshots on happy drunks breaking few laws. These dumb bearded hordes then drive off in the thousands toward the West Mountain festival called Sturgis hosting even more Gestapo. Bikers might look tough but their brains are baby rattles.

  20. Cops are definitely a protected class in this country.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.