Rand Paul

Must Conservatives Be Cop Lovers?

Rand Paul challenges fellow Republicans to rethink their reflexive support of law enforcement.

|

Sen. Rand Paul
US Senate

Running for the U.S. Senate in 2010, Rand Paul became known as that crazy right-winger who expressed reservations about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But in the last two years, the Kentucky Republican has emerged as his party's most passionate voice on criminal justice reform, decrying the system's disproportionate impact on African Americans.

You might think Paul, widely seen as a contender for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, is trying to redeem himself with black voters who were alienated by his criticism of the Civil Rights Act. Yet both positions spring from the same wariness of state power, as illustrated by the senator's comments on the over-the-top police response to the unrest that followed the August 9 shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri.

Paul has always said he supports the Civil Rights Act provisions that apply to racial discrimination by the government. But in 2010 he said he was not so keen on the parts of the law that ban discrimination by private businesses, likening such "abhorrent behavior" to the racist speech that we tolerate because of our commitment to individual freedom.

Not surprisingly, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous disagreed with Paul's stance on the Civil Rights Act. But Jealous also said this: "I have got to hand it to Rand Paul. It takes some serious guts to publicly challenge such a cherished pillar of the modern American identity."

Paul's positions on criminal justice issues also take some serious guts. He is not just reaching out to a segment of the electorate that is overwhelmingly hostile to Republicans; he is challenging members of his own party to rethink their reflexive support of law enforcement and tough-on-crime policies.

"There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response," Paul wrote in Time on August 14. "There is a systemic problem with today's law enforcement," he added, and "big government has been at the heart of the problem," fostering the militarization of police equipment and tactics.

Paul went further, encouraging Republicans to consider what it feels like to be on the receiving end of excessive police force and excessive criminal punishment. "Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system," he said, "it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them. This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri."

The point is not that Officer Darren Wilson committed a crime when he shot Michael Brown, a question that as of this writing has yet to be resolved. The point is that black residents of Ferguson had ample reason to suspect the shooting was not justified and to worry that the official investigation would be rigged in Wilson's favor.

"Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention," Paul wrote. "Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth."

We are not used to hearing Republicans say that sort of thing. But it happens to be true, and Paul, who in March 2013 introduced a bill that would effectively abolish the federal government's mandatory minimum sentences, is trying to do something about it. He is also sponsoring legislation aimed at restoring the voting rights of nonviolent felons and mitigating the lasting impact that serving time has on people's employment prospects. "I believe in redemption and forgiveness," he explains.

Paul is not asking conservatives to abandon their beliefs. He is asking them to extend their avowed skepticism of big government to the parts of that apparatus that lock people in cages and shoot them down in the street.

NEXT: From the CDC, on how Ebola can be transmitted

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. As long as commentators like Rush continue to beat the drum for law enforcement (he donates profits from his tea company to the Marine Corp and Law Enforcement Foundation after all) a large number of conservatives will stay in line with their unquestioning support of police.

    I happened to tune in to Rush for a few segments in August, and Rush was firmly and wholeheartedly still behind the Ferguson police. That big government is terrible except for policing is one of the conservatives wing’s greater ironies.

    It is nice to have Mark Steyn come out against police brutality and militarization.

    1. Rush and other talk radio guys are developmentally stuck in the 1970s on a lot of issues. The majority of self described conservatives have moved on.

      1. You conservative cowards and libertarian COPouts, too scared to actually stand up and form a real 1700’s style Tea Party, so you just talk the talk.
        http://youareproperty.blogspot…..a.html?m=1
        We in government don’t lose any sleep over your “tea party.”

        1. needs moar self-parody

    2. Law enforcement isn’t going to go away. If you don’t want Republicans voting with cops, you’re going to need to tell them that the cops are unionized and vote Democrat.

      1. Even that might not work. Police and fire fighter unions seem to be the only ones the Republicans won’t touch.

        1. We, as a people, need cops and firefighters. We don’t need corrupt or degenerate cops or firefighters, but they’re a necessary part of our society.

          I don’t know very many Republicans who love gung ho SWAT types. Not to mention the cost of operating a gung ho SWAT operation. I personally don’t think people need much education when it comes to police abuse and overuse of the public’s resources.

          1. Unfortunately, I think you’re wrong. Due to TV shows, cops are ALWAYS the good guys. Let me use fire fighters as an example. Firehouse density is determined by the needs of turn of the 19th century cities. Yet, because of better materials and stricter building codes, fires are rarer by orders of magnitude. So, go try to get elected by telling voters that we should close firehouses.
            Cops are the same way. Society is much safer now than even 40 years ago, but if you talk to the average person, they will tell you that things are worse. Parents won’t even let their kids walk to school anymore, because of the imagined danger of stranger abduction, even though 99% of all child rapes/murder are conducted by people the child knows, usually family members.
            Reality and peoples’ perceptions seldom line up, and the average middle class voter will ALWAYS back the police and firefighters.

    3. the GOP has historically been pro law and order, much like the Dems have historically been pro-welfare state. It’s only recently that the overreach and antics of cops have come into full view, and that has caused a few people to notice.

      That big government is terrible except for policing is one of the conservatives wing’s greater ironies.

      actually, public safety is one of the roles of govt most people can agree upon. Now, how that job is being done is certainly ripe for debate but it’s not like creating some agency to dictate how you manage your soft-drink consumption or some such.

      1. public safety is one of the roles of govt most people can agree upon.

        I don’t. The government should only exist to protect individual property rights.

        1. That’s a new one. So it shouldn’t protect against violent crime?

          1. Asking a criminal gang that uses violence to maintain their alleged monopoly on the power to steal and dictate, to “protect” you against violent crime, is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the state.

            1. The government that we live under is not maintained by violence or the threat thereof, it’s maintained by a sense of legitimacy among the population. It only uses violence and threats to get deviants from the population’s values back in conformity with social norms. The government serves society, not the other way around.

              That’s very different from a real criminal gang, which terrorizes society to force it to serve them.

              1. The government serves society, not the other way around.

                Try avoiding your taxes and see what happens.

                1. In that case I would be a deviant from social norms, and punishing my deviance would be a service to society.

                  1. Ask the next 1000 people you meet whether or not they wish to pay their taxes.

                    Social norms are actually against taxes, trust me. The only reason 90% of the populace pays their taxes is because of the threat of violence.

                    1. People would also prefer not to have to pay for their clothes; that doesn’t imply they think stealing clothes is OK.

                      Similarly, the fact that people do not like paying taxes does not mean they think no one should have to pay taxes.

                    2. People would also prefer not to have to pay for their clothes; that doesn’t imply they think stealing clothes is OK

                      The difference is pretty simple, actually. In your example, a citizen is stealing the property of another citizen.

                      In my example, the government is stealing from everybody, illegally, I might add. While we stare down the barrel of their guns.

                    3. That difference is irrelevant to the point.

                      Do your poll again and ask whether people in general should have to pay taxes. That’s how you find social norms.

                    4. So let me make sure I understand this correctly. If we ask a completely random group of people whether people in general should pay taxes, and they say yes, we should ALL have to pay taxes?

                      What if we phrase the question differently? If we ask a completely random group of people whether it’s acceptable to steal from everybody other than them, and they say yes, does THAT mean we have to pay taxes?

                      People are selfish and stupid, for the most part. The “hah hah, I’ve got mine” attitude is prevalent everywhere. In no way shape or form does that give “society” the right to make decisions for individuals.

                      The original purpose of the income tax amendment was to tax the wealthiest members of the country 1-3%, to fund the neccessary salaries and needs of the federal government without the states having to give up any of their precious fucking revenue. They actually wanted to cap that at 3%, but didn’t, because the opposition was afraid it would be maxed at 3% and stay there forever. The stupid fucks figured the fedgov would NEVER be so greedy as to go beyond that.

                      My point here is that “Society” wants all kinds of things. Individuals never want to pay for them. Ask 1000 individuals about paying taxes themselves, and you’ll get an emphatic “NO”. Ask 1000 individuals if “society” should pay taxes, and you’ll mostly get yes, because that kind of pedantic bullshit tends to make people think of others, rather than themselves.

                    5. So you’re admitting that social norms do favor people having to pay taxes.

                    6. As soon as you admit that social norms have nothing to do with policy, law, or right and wrong.

                  2. Fuck ‘society’. “Society” does not have rights, especially to my monies.

              2. “It only uses violence and threats to get deviants from the population’s values back in conformity with social norms. The government serves society, not the other way around.”

                That’s pretty funny. Where can I find a handbook detailing all of the “population’s” values? What is this supposed population? 100% of the citizens? 51%? A small but vocal minority?

                If people refuse to participate in Obamacare — which, if I recall correctly, was opposed by a majority of the population — does their refusal constitute “deviance” from the “population’s values?” It’s pretty silly, as well as circular, to maintain that whatever the government does by force is merely to reflect majority values and stamp out “deviance.”

                Secondly, that theory endorses a particularly sick form of majoritarianism, antithetical to our founding principles of inalienable rights.

          2. So it shouldn’t protect against violent crime?

            Your premise is wrong. One’s body is one’s property. Violent crime is a violation of one’s property.

            1. Kind of an odd definition, but OK. Then public safety IS defending property rights, and your previous comment is nonsensical.

              1. No it isn’t. I referred to individual rights. You are referring to “public safety”, which opens a whole other can of worms when it comes to what power the government should legitimately have.

              2. Not an odd definition at all, if you understand how individual rights work.

                It’s actually a basic concept.

                1. Not an odd definition at all, if you understand how individual rights work.

                  Hardly. Treating the right to life and bodily integrity as a subset of property rights turns the hierarchy of rights upside down. Property rights are meaningless without the right to life; property rights depend on the right to life, not the other way around.

                  Treating one’s body as a mere piece of property also leads to some troubling consequences. For instance, in personal bankruptcy, can creditors demand that the bankrupt person’s organs be liquidated on the open market to pay debts? Under the usual understanding of rights, of course not, one’s body is not mere property, it is part of one’s self and not subject to liquidation. But if the right to bodily integrity is just another property right, it’s hard to see how such an event can be forestalled.

                  1. Treating the right to life and bodily integrity as a subset of property rights turns the hierarchy of rights upside down.

                    I don’t think you know what words mean.

                    1. Also, no it doesn’t. This is because a person may only, justifiably, own themselves.

                    2. So it’s a special kind of property right that doesn’t apply to any other property?

                      That would make the whole notion of property rights kind of suspect. Sort of like putting snakes and staplers in the same category because they’re both long and slender and hurt when you stick your finger in them.

              3. It’s only “kind of an odd definition” if you are ignorant of the philosophy underlying property rights. To talk about property rights while acting as if the individual-as-his-own-property is some kind of novel or odd concept makes me wonder if you’ve just stumbled into a conversation you aren’t ready to have.

          3. Well, they don’t protect against violent crime now, so why should we expect them to?

            The police enforce policy. They do not protect and serve.

        2. Yeah, man… Free john lee malvo! The real problem with that situation wasn’t that there was a roving psychopath on the loose it was the fact that citizens didn’t outfit their Jetson mobile with a sniper detector equipped with bazooka defender. He didn’t violate anyone ‘s private property rights so according to my rothbard’s rules of order there’s no harm, no foul.

          Can I get you to write me back with a public space that you’d like to meet at and a date and time? I’d like to meet more conceited rich assholes like you so I can shoot them in the dick. You wouldn’t ‘t press charges, right? Any place is fine. I’m willing to travel. Thanks, bro.

          1. I’m trying to decide if anything you just wrote has any tangible or coherent meaning.

            1. I can save you the time, it doesn’t.

    4. As long as commentators like Rush…a large number of conservatives will stay in line with their unquestioning support of police.

      Don’t blame Limbaugh (or the band). This is how “conservatives” have been since well before he was on the scene, and I don’t see him making a significant contribution to it. AFAICT, “conservatives” suck up to the police as a bulwark against the Other. It wasn’t that big a deal until the counter-culture became prominent, but I think the sentiment was there previously.

      1. The time that the leftist counter-culture became prominent coincided with a massive increase in crime…. which may not have been a coinky-dink.

    5. Is Rush as important as he and his enemies think he is?

      1. I’m around a lot of libertarians and conservatives and I know very few people who discuss or even admit to listening to him anymore.

        At this point, I think Limbaugh is of more interest to liberals than conservatives, simply because his comments are more useful to liberals.

        1. He was funny for about 2 years in the 90’s.

          I haven’t listened to him on purpose in any year that starts with a 2. It’s not that I even hate him or anything. He’s just not that entertaining or informative.

  2. I never trust anyone from the government,much like most on here.(Except Tony and a few others).The republican party loves their form of big daddy government.They worship the cops and military.

    1. And don’t even try to propose to cut their spending! Right-wing political correctness…

    2. They don’t love the military. They love war. Different.

      1. I usually agree with you, but on this, I think you are wrong. I don’t believe conservatives “love war”. I truly think that, in their minds, “supporting the troops” morphs into “supporting whatever war the troops are fighting.” I suspect that this hearkens back to the bad old days of the Vietnam War, when my dad was greeted at the airport with spit and accusations of “baby killer”.
        BOTH parties are in hawk up to their eyeballs to the military-industrial-intelligence complex, but the common man or woman in fly-over country believes that it is important to support our brave men and women who serve in the military.

        1. The myth that soldiers returning from Vietnam were spit on or called “baby-killers” has been debunked. Your dad was lying to you if he told you that happened.

    3. “They worship the cops and military.”

      That sounds quite harmless – until you realize the millions of lives ruined by our overzealous incarceration policies and the trillions of dollars spent on such authoritarianism.

      Which is why we on the left say “peace”.

      1. Liar. When do you say peace? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Syria? Pakistan? Somalia? Yemen?

        Obama has bombed nearly twice as many Muslim countries as Bush

      2. “we on the left say “peace”.”

        And that’s pretty much all you do.

      3. you on the left got us into both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam, and most of you voted for the first Gulf war and the one in Iraq. No, you don’t say ‘peace’ unless the other side is saying war; when it’s your side with the ability to make the call, you’re all for drone killing, spying, etc etc etc.

        1. I don’t think you can blame the American left for WW2. Every significant ideological grouping supported the war.

          As for Korea, our lives would have been a shit-ton harder if the Kims had been in charge of the entire peninsula for the past 60 years. It’s one of the prime examples of when noninterventionism would have had terrible effects.

          And it was Ike that first sent troops to Vietnam.

          1. when someone like craiginmass breaks out the peace chant, some reality is in order. What did we get out of Korea? Besides a never-ending monstrous expense for the privilege of protecting people who don’t seem very grateful for it and a nation whose biggest cause of death is starvation. And Vietnam worked out so well. Just saying the peace pipe does not suit the left very well.

            1. Huh? The Korean War didn’t create the North Korean government, it prevented it from extending further south (and causing even more starvation).

              What did it accomplish? Aside from the above, it gave us a critical strategic base of operations in the ECS region, a buffer to protect Japan from commie aggression, and dealt the first major setback to Communist expansionism. I know it’s chic for libertarians in 2014 to equivalence the current creeping statism with Communism, but real Communism was far, far worse.

              1. I’m torn on Korea. Stopping communism was absolutely a moral prerogative of the USG, but there wasn’t a direct threat to America any more than in Vietnam.

                This was interestingly the one time the UN didn’t suck.

                1. If you wait for a threat to be direct you’ve already lost.

                  Rigid ideologies are great for debate club and blog comment sections, not for real-world foreign policy. Noninterventionism is great as a guiding principle or a default decision, but it must not be treated as an absolute rule or our enemies will take advantage of it.

                  1. I hate ‘noninterventionism’ and regard it as a religious belief with no root in reality. The blood sacrifice it demands from America makes it an incredibly evil ideology. Still, Korea tears me. I favour the USG funding anti-communistic insurgencies in the Cold War like the Contras, but Korea got a lot of Americans killed for Korean and Japanese freedom. Why couldn’t more Japanese and fewer Americans have been in the grinder? The Japanese were certainly capable of fighting like hell in Korea. They had experience in that work!

                    1. We could always just take over the entire world, right? Then we’d never have war again!

                    2. Not sure if parody or retarded.

                    3. Parody. I’ve gotten my surgery over with and I’m off the heavy duty narcotic pain meds I’ve been scarfing for the past year, so I’m capable of subtlety again.

                    4. The Japanese were certainly capable of fighting like hell in Korea. They had experience in that work!

                      I don’t think that would have been terribly good for winning Korean hearts and minds. A lot of Koreans did die defending their country from the Norks, and in the various Nork purges that occurred while they occupied the south.

                    5. Exactly the reason why they couldn’t. It wouldn’t have been politically viable.

                      Remember, we had nocked the Japanese military down to a “self defense force” that couldn’t operate outside of their border.

                  2. If we wait for Saddam to use his nonexistent WMDs, then our weapons won’t get there in time for ISIS to steal them.

                    1. You mean the non-existent WMDs that were actually found in Iraq and many H&R veterans saw with their own eyes? Those ones?

                    2. Conspiracy theories?…

                    3. +1 Mel Gibson

                    4. When did this happen? Did you read about this on prisonplanet.com?

                  3. We haven’t faced a direct threat to the US since the war of 1812. Get your head out of your ass.

          2. Ike and JFK sent a few troops and advisors to Vietnam-a wholly prudent move to check the spread of communism. It was LBJ that not only escalated it but worse tied the hands of the US military and turned a winnable war into an unwinnable one-until Nixon untied them.

          3. “Every significant ideological grouping supported the war.”

            After it was blasphemous not to. Imposing the oil embargo on Japan was an act of war, period. Not just as a regular sanction, either, it was meant to cripple the Jap military. Pearl Harbor didn’t start WWII for America. There was little public support for stopping Japanese expansion, as it had nothing to do with us.

            “As for Korea, our lives would have been a shit-ton harder if the Kims”

            Guess you can just say whatever you want and its true. But they probably wouldn’t be so paranoid and aggressive if they didn’t have stated usurpers with imperial superpowers backing them up on their southern border. And don’t twist this into me defending the pukestain Kims

            1. Imposing the oil embargo on Japan was an act of war, period.

              So you would have been OK with the US going to war with the Arab nations in 1972?

              An embargo is not a blockade.

              And yes you are defending the Kims when you give excuses for their flagrant misrule.

              1. No, but you can’t expect an imperial, expanding power to not react to such an act, while they are in the hot-war time of their expansion.

                We should not have gone to war in 1972 with the Arab states, of course- understanding what kind of country Japan was in the 40s and instigating confrontation with them does not make their predictable reactions either intelligent or morally rights.

                “And yes you are defending the Kims when you give excuses for their flagrant misrule.”

                Nothing I said implies this. I just knew you would grasp at straws, and I was right.

                1. you can’t expect an imperial, expanding power to not react to such an act, while they are in the hot-war time of their expansion.

                  Oh yes I can.

                  1. That’s fine then. Place the embargo, get 3500 servicemen killed, and bring us into war.

                    1. I guess you blame rape victims for dressing sluttily too.

                    2. I blame the people who committed the crimes, as well as understanding that rational actors could have prevented what they did not want to happen, regardless of “fault”, if they performed rational actions.

                      So “blame” here is a political word, nothing else.

                    3. So we should have continued helping them to rape and kill and oppress their neighbors by selling them oil?

                    4. Oh yes. Its the only option. We should not have entered WWII.

                2. No, but you can’t expect an imperial, expanding power to not react to such an act, while they are in the hot-war time of their expansion.

                  I expect the mugger to react badly when I refuse to give him the money he demands. That doesn’t make me responsible for what he does to me.

                  1. But if you jab a robber in the back, in an alleyway, announce you are not armed, and you think his mother is a worthless whore- well, then, go right ahead.

                    Again, “blame” and “guilt” doesn’t matter. It’s not the intelligent thing to do.

                    1. It seems to have been a very intelligent thing to do.

                      Japan is now a relatively free and democratic country, a steadfast US ally in the Far East, with mutually beneficial relationships with most of its neighbors.

                      Coddling the totalitarian Shinto assholes, as you advise, would have led to a far less happy outcome.

                    2. Does Shopko “coddle” you when they sell you something? Its business.

                      Japan is “free”, as in cannot control their own military. And we send thousands of troops and top-secret technology there all the time to fight the cold war we have been fighting there since we incinerated 200,000 non-military targets– all so we could have our expensive little empire.

                    3. Remember to lift with your knees when moving those goalposts.

                    4. Where did I do that?
                      I know you like to keep your posts pretty small, so sorry to call you out.

                  2. You seemed pretty damn arrogant so I thought you’d be a harder argument and better practice.

                    False advertising.

        2. You do understand that, in Korea, we were fighting AGAINST a true communist takeover of the entire area – and that was a gateway to Japan and further for the Ruskies and Chicoms?

          Wow, one second you hate commies and the next you are OK with them taking over the world by slaughter.

          1. It’s better for communism to take over and be a city on a hill, rather than just be another imperial power with no example of a more liberalized, free, peace-loving society.

            1. Yeah I’m sure there would be no negative consequences to freedom of letting the USSR take over a country after it nearly seized control of America before WW2.

              1. Which country? They took over many before they collapsed.

                1. The USSR duh.

                  1. Dude… what are you saying.

          2. Korea = Koch + Gonorrhea

            Only Koch funded fake Paulite libertarians support the Kochrean War. People who support true freedom are against war and especially the war on women. From this knowlege a new type of voter is likely to emerge called a antiKochlean. It will be

            anticommie…
            Live in Mass…
            hate Koch but love cock and coke…
            white…
            liberal…
            feel superior to others…
            deluded…

            A wave of these new emergent voters will sweep the polls and elect Jim Webb into office and eliminate war.

            1. Uh. . .

              Ehrm. . .

              Hmmmm. . .

              I don’t. . .I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

      4. War is only bad if “BUSHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!”

      5. “We on the the left say ‘peace’ when the GOP is in power” -FTFY

      6. “Which is why we on the left say “peace”.”

        And then you elect pieces of shit like Martha Coakley, who railroad innocent people for the headlines, when they’re not ignoring crimes of the politically connected.

        1. I thought you were busy sucking Scott Brown and Romneys cocks? We elected them and they seem to have very high positions within the Grand Ole Party.

          1. Uh, bro… neither of those people holds elected office anymore, nor are they in leadership positions in the Republican party. None of which, of course, has anything to do with your favored gubernatorial candidate’s total lack of ethics as a prosecutor. You used to be better at this.

  3. Who really believes that Rand Paul represents “conservatives?” Either way, please check my thoughts on police militarization at: http://grbudwest.com/2014/10/october-1/

    1. A majority of Kentucky voters in 2010?

    2. No.

  4. Paul is not asking conservatives to abandon their beliefs. He is asking them to extend their avowed skepticism of big government to the parts of that apparatus that lock people in cages and shoot them down in the street.

    But conservatives absolutely love big government. So yes, he is asking them to abandon their beliefs.

    1. Well, their claimed belief is in small government.

      (I’ll stop laughing in a few minutes.)

  5. Most conservatives hate socialism but are fine with throwing you in jail for not citing the Pledge of Allegiance, which I might add was written by a known Christian Socialist.

    I know what I said seems to be random, but I’m hoping to clue you all into the Conservative mindset. Therefore, I feel damn sorry for Rand having to walk on egg shells littered on a mind field his walking across.

    1. I wish there was an edit button so I could change mind to mine and his to he is walking across.

      1. “mind field”

        I know mine’s blown…

    2. “on a mind field”

      Mindfields!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou17DeaPRe4

    3. “but I’m hoping to clue you all into the Conservative mindset. ”

      Thanks for educating us Mr. Counting Horse’s less Clever cousin.

    4. Most conservatives hate socialism but are fine with throwing you in jail for not citing the Pledge of Allegiance

      Is this the “completely making shit up” part of the thread?

      1. No, we’ve had assholes order officers to arrest those who fail to stand and say the loyalty oath.

  6. How about we stop making every cop out to be a hero? There are lots of dangerous jobs yet it seems it is only the cop that gets the attention when hurt or killed. If you take the paycheck and badge, sorry you are taking that risk.

    Which brings the other problem – acceptance, if not outright urging, for the cop to put his own safety above all others. The motto is ‘to serve and protect’ – the people, not the police officer. I’m not suggesting a cop should never fire his weapon in self defense. But it damn well better be a last resort.

    1. “If you take the paycheck and badge, sorry you are taking that risk.”

      And that risk is quite low as compared to many other civilian jobs……so unless we are gonna praise loggers, roofers, pilots, garbage collectors and others for their service……

      1. garbage collectors

        Now I want to know; How many garbage men get mangled in the crusher of a garbage truck each year?

        1. Lots of them!

          http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/…..n-the-u-s/

          1. I want to say “awesome”.

            But I don’t want to look like a “douche”.

            Conundrum. . .

      2. I guess people appreciate their own and their family’s safety from rape, murder, and kidnapping more than they appreciate the wooden dinner table that loggers risked their lives for.

        1. We should figure out a way to grow trees horizontally. I’m serious about that. I taught an applied botany course, so I appreciate the difficulty.

          1. Tall timber amounts to a large excretion supporting a relatively small amount of living light-capturing biomass near the top. Trees got that way adaptationally to scarf up the light away from other plants, but that’s no help to domesticated plants that aren’t in commpetition with each other. If we could alter tree morphology so their excrement (the wood) would lay in a log sideways on the ground with the foliage topside, logging would be vastly simpler, safer, & cheaper.

            1. But it would make the joke about tree fellers and there being only 2 of them obsolete. Can the world stand to have one more joke or reference become unintelligible, along with 3 sheets to the wind, etc.?

            2. Where is the root going to be? How does it get sugar? How does it move water to the leaves?

              You’re either going to make it hideously complicated, or wind up with something that really isn’t a tree anymore — which wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, just sayin.

              1. Roots growing out of the bottom side of the log, of course. Overall morphology similar to that of grasses, but with a big honkin’ horizontal runner made out of wood.

                1. Ridiculous. Trees grow vertically for the same reason that dense urban centers have sky scrappers- it is a more economical use of land. A horizontal tree that is 100 feet long could be replaced by what, 5 vertical trees 100 feet high? If your idea was worth anything at all, we would see some evolutionary attempt at a horizontal tree.
                  Either sarcasm or complete tin-foil hat quackery.

                  1. Trees don’t grow vertically right next to each other, there’s a lot of extra space required for the canopy. Five 100 foot trees laid down next to each other would take up less space on the ground than the space required for them if they were vertical.

                    Still don’t think Robert’s plan is feasible, but not for that reason.

                    1. That’s why I said 5 trees. You need space between them. But, if it was even close to as an efficient use of space, nature would have produced such a tree somewhere, sometime, during the billions of years of life on Earth.
                      And five 100 foot trees laid down next to each other would NOT take less space than required for vertical trees.
                      If an average 100 foot high tree has a trunk width of, say, 2 feet, than the total space those 5 horizontal trees would take is 1000 square feet, whereas the vertical ones, of the same dimension, would be 200 square feet.

                    2. Actually, it’s worse than that. I gave each tree 20 feet of canopy space. So, five horizontal trees laid vertical would require 5 times 20 times 100, which, by my math, equals 10,000 square feet.

                    3. You have a different idea of “efficient” from what I mean. What’s efficient for the survival & propagation of uncultivated trees is not the same as what is efficient for fulfilling human desires. The trees don’t have to want to grow that way; the question is, can we make them grow that way?

          2. The fundamental biological mechanisms of trees depend on their water and sap flow being vertically oriented, so I don’t think it’s possible to do that. Artificially producing wood is a possibility though.

            1. So you think altering some details of tree physiology would be harder than changing everything else and leaving wood biosynthesis in place?

              The water & sap flows aren’t responding to gravity anyway, but to chemical gradients. If water flow responded to verticality, trees wouldn’t die from root exposure. Similarly, sap flow couldn’t be made to reverse if it were gravitational.

              1. Unfortunately for logging purposes, the tree senses the carbon flow and keeps extending in the direction it’s coming from, instead of growing elsewhere. It can grow elsewhere, as evidenced by its roots, but it doesn’t grow sideways on the ground for the convenience of the timber industry.

                1. We could always splice a tree with Dunphys soft, flaccid cock. They’d stay low to the ground and easy to cut, plus we’d get to constantly chop up that wankers’ wanker a hundred times a day!

                  1. I’m sure you’d love the performance of the police penis dinner table.

                    1. This wonderful wooden wanker china cabinet, on sale today for only $999.99!

                      See the wood grain, here? The way it throbs when you stroke it? That’s genuine canadian cockwood!

        2. Unfortunately, cops don’t do this, they investigate crimes and pursue persons of interest. But there is something to be said for everyone thinking they’re doing something.

  7. “Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention,” Paul wrote. “Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.”

    This is certainly not incorrect, but the real issue is fifty years of continuous criminalization of everything. Democrats are just as guilty.

    The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

  8. their claimed belief is in small government.

    Zero sum government; they merely want to cut some parts in order to expand their pet authoritarian projects.

    1. As always, on target. Teams Blue and Red BOTH want large, authoritarian government; they only disagree (somewhat) on which version of Statism they would enforce: it is like the difference between Sunni and Shia enforcement of Sharia.

  9. Both conservatives and libertarians (at least the Koch-led types) tend to be authoritarians, although they will deny it with force!

    Authoritarians, in general, would approve of police and “strong leaders” no matter what they do. Their words may say otherwise, but they march in lockstep to “support the troops and blue line”.

    After all, doing otherwise may prove unpopular and get them thrown out of the “club”.

      1. Nah, craig is 100% right. You Koch-style libertarians are just jealous you can’t be as genuinely anti-authoritarian as a leftist like him. I mean, just look at the arguments progs make:

        “Of course the government can force you to buy health insurance!”

        “Only the police and military should have guns!”

        “Making birth control over-the-counter is a terrible idea!”

        See? Totally anti-authoritarian!

        1. “Nah, craig is 100% right. You Koch-style libertarians are just jealous you can’t be as genuinely anti-authoritarian as a leftist like him. I mean, just look at the arguments progs make:”

          LOOK – over THERE! There is some guy we made up out of thin air called a prog! Look at him and don’t pay any attention to the actual facts or the article you are commenting on.

          FACT: The right is authoritarian. Period.

          Not to say human beings don’t have that tendency. Our behavior is always slanted toward being a member of the more powerful club or tribe.

          But the right celebrates that. That is, they are impressed when the guns parade and the bombs drop.

          As usual, we lefties have a more nuanced and thoughtful view. We know it’s not a peaceful world and that we need rules and enforcement, yet we lament overkill. It’s a balancing act – but for Step One we have to stop all these murders by scared cops.

          1. Mostly what I see is that in theory lefties triple down on authoritarianism at home and avoid it abroad. In practice they triple down on it everywhere because the one thing about lefties is they are sure that they have all of the requisite genius to micromanage the lives of 300 million people they have never met.

            1. “because the one thing about lefties is they are sure that they have all of the requisite genius to micromanage the lives of 300 million people they have never met”
              Yep!

              That’s exactly why MA was the first state to allow gay marriage and one of the first to decrim pot, etc. – so we can “micro-manage” people!

              At least get your facts straight. Let me help you just a little bit. We libs do like regulation such as having to build fireproof buildings in tight cities (MA was among the first to require this, which is why our cities didn’t burn down like Chicago, etc.).

              We also like to regulate folks who dump poisons into our air and water – not for some idealogical reason, but because our own waterways and ground were grossly polluted by industry long ago.

              But, then again, you probably like “free” states like GA and SC where instead of micromanaging you, they dump vast percentages of their population in jail and where they used law enforcement (historically) to keep down those black fellas and steal their lands (many a bond was made by black families signing over their deeds).

              I’d just say we have different ideas of freedom. To me, decrim of pot and decrim of abortion and what we do in our bedrooms and homes IS freedom, whereas you probably cheer for those states who want to use Cops to instill “family values” in their populace – i.e. Red and Conservative states.

              As to this article above- one more instance of Cons trying to switch over to our “lib and progs” ways.

              1. Decriminalized pot and ass sex doesn’t make up for a vast regulatory machine that criminalizes generating wealth. You made Detroit, so why don’t you live there?

                1. “You made Detroit, so why don’t you live there?”

                  That’s the silliest “debate point” I’ve ever heard. You do know the slant of history, don’t you? That we now import vast amounts of cars and that robots take the place of tens of thousands of workers? Or that we now have telecommuting, the interweb, containerized shipping and don’t have to build vast factories all in one place?

                  Detroit is nothing more than what NYC and Pittsburgh were at the time they made their transitions – and both, I may add, are extremely successful (and lefty, in general) this present day.

                  you are just one more example of that great libertarian creed of “I can find something somewhere wrong and therefore everything must be”.

                  “”It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.

                  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
                  ? Theodore Roosevelt”

                  1. So…
                    you’re calling yourself a hero

                  2. Detroit is nothing more than what NYC and Pittsburgh were at the time they made their transitions

                    That’s a lie.

                    we now import vast amounts of cars and that robots take the place of tens of thousands of workers?

                    A fact that Tennessee and other Southeastern car manufacturing hubs not only dealt with but thrived off of. What’s it like to be so demented and psychotic that you’d actually quote TDR?

                    1. “A fact that Tennessee and other Southeastern car manufacturing hubs not only dealt with but thrived off of. What’s it like to be so demented and psychotic that you’d actually quote TDR?”

                      1. TN and SC are doing horribly when measured by most civilized standards. Nice car plants in KY too – Rand’s state is usually on the 5 or 10 worst lists for everything. So, please don’t give me that BS….the new car plants have extremely small workforces in comparison (they don’t forge parts, for example – they just assemble).

                      Your idea of “thriving” seems to be the 7.4% unemployment in TN…

                      2. Did they take Teddy off of Mt. Rushmore yet?

                    2. 1. TN and SC are doing horribly when measured by most civilized standards.

                      Where “civilized” means something like “conforming to my demented, protectionist, authoritarian, self-contradictory ideals”. Terrific goal post shifting btw. It was so subtle I almost didn’t notice!

                      Seriously, get back on your meds. You used to be a lot better at this before you became quite so vocally deranged.

                  3. Detroit is nothing more than what NYC and Pittsburgh were at the time they made their transitions- and both, I may add, are extremely successful (and lefty, in general) this present day.

                    Pittsburgh is still in receivership with the state (ie, they can’t pay their bills so they have to get their budget approved by Harrisburg bureaucrats every year) and has resorted to shaking down CMU and Pitt for “voluntary” donations by threatening to tax tuition. They’ve also almost completely dismantled their mass transit system to save money. Pittsburgh didn’t become Detroit (or Youngstown, Akron, Buffalo, Toledo, or a host of other former industrial cities) purely because it happened to have a pair of world-class universities in it’s borders that helped to attract tech companies. The misgovernance of that place is just as severe as Detroit’s.

                    NYC went 20 years without a Democrat mayor until this year.

                    1. “NYC went 20 years without a Democrat mayor until this year.”

                      Ah, so you admit Bloomberg is a GOP man???

                      New Flash. A Mayor doesn’t fix the economy in a place with 8 million people in it. A Mayor doesn’t fix the economy in a town of 10,000 people!

                      PEOPLE – diverse people from all walks of life…young people (been to Brooklyn lately?) immigrants, etc – that’s who fixed NYC.

              2. Actually lets look at some of the lefty projects out there

                smoking bans
                trans-fats bans
                light bulb bans
                salt bans
                health care policy mandates
                plastic bag bans
                criminalizing political speech
                big gulp bans

                And for the record I do believe in pot legalization because I think people do have sovereignty over their own bodies. Of course I also apply this to all things and don’t selectively decide I know best when some terminal cancer patient decides they want to try an experimental drug without an FDA permission slip.

                But yeah you guys aren’t for a centrally planned authoritarian state because you know you are like magnanimous enough to merely fine people for smoking pot instead of throwing them in cages.

                1. No rudehost, you are wrong. San Francisco is super liberal and it along with Berkeley are probably the two freest cities in the whole country. The liberals there don’t care what you do as long as you don’t bother anyone else. Those places are all about freedom, not fake libertarian places like Somalia or Mexico or Texas.

                  Detroit is just like NYC used to be! When NYC had a tiny white population and was entirely centered on one industry and had half its population leave! but now its back and is practically a super paradise thanks to the fact that liberals made fireproof housing and emergent voters and abortion rights! Maybe your just a stupid person or a fake libertarian paid by the Paulite Kochs and think that you can fool us with your Koch funded screeds. it isn’t working.

                  1. As someone born in and still residing in SF I had to laugh out loud at the idiocy of that last comment. Look at the local measures we will be voting on next month for some examples of that “live and let live” attitude in action. Ejit.

                  2. “San Francisco is super liberal and it along with Berkeley are probably the two freest cities in the whole country.”

                    You mean the city that pretty much banned Happy Meals? Even though McDonald’s took it upon themselves to make healthier foods available to be put in them?

                  3. I am wrong? Which fact am I wrong about?

                    As far as SF yeah real free up there unless you want to buy your kid a standard happy meal or use a plastic bag for your groceries. San Francisco is free only for things that are popular with 51% of the population but quite authoritarian if you are in the 49%.

                    As far as Somalia I a bit tired of this functionally retarded talking point. Your philosophy is more consistent with North Korea’s than mine is with Somalia.

                    Finally I didn’t realize NY is surviving because of fireproof housing. The awesomeness of proglodytes is a learn a humorous new non-fact style fact with each breath. Your stupid is offensive.

                2. “ctually lets look at some of the lefty projects out there

                  smoking bans
                  trans-fats bans
                  light bulb bans
                  salt bans
                  health care policy mandates
                  plastic bag bans
                  criminalizing political speech
                  big gulp bans

                  Actually, a post above makes note that Bloomberg was elected as a Republican. You can’t have it both ways, my friends…

                  1. Bloomberg served more time as an independent than as a republican, which is totally irrelevant to his orientation on the left or right of the political spectrum. Left and right are ideological inclinations. Democrat and republican are political parties. Right-leaning democrats and left-leaning republicans are actually possible. But then I know it’s hard for a sophisticated, nuanced thinker such as yourself to understand anything outside of TEAM dynamics.

                  2. The fact that bloomberg ran as a republican doesn’t make him a lefty. Although David Duke is clearly a lefty after all he ran in the 2008 democratic presidential primary.

                    See how that works?

                    1. Doh too early. Duke ran in the 1988 not 2008 democratic presidential primary therfore David Duke is a prototypical white sheet wearing lefty.

              3. Yes, the leftists in CA would never, ever want to get in peoples’ bedrooms. That is just crazy talk.

                http://www.mercurynews.com/edu…..-means-yes

              4. Libertarians are not Republicans. We just feel that, due to at least the lip service the GOP pays to “small government”, vs. the Democrats’ constant “there oughta be a law” (to ban smoking, or even e-cigs, large sodas, sex [see California], etc., ad nasuem), we might have a better chance to reform the Republican than the Democratic party.
                But yeah, the Koch brothers and other Libertarians have a devious plan: to take over the world and leave you the hell alone! Oh, how evil!
                You stupid troll.

          2. Suspending a kid over a gun-shaped pop tart is nuanced and practical.

          3. “we lefties have a more nuanced and thoughtful view.”

            A view that supports:

            1. Forcing people to buy health insurance

            2. Thinking that raising the minimum wage will help poor people

            3. Refusing to understand the differences between society vs. government, money vs. wealth, and intentions vs. results

            4. Being in thrall of empty-headed losers like Karl Marx

            5. Continuing to call for gun bans and gun-free zones, no matter how many shootings occur in places that already have them

            6. Free speech zones, zero-tolerance policies, hate crimes, hate speech and every other pea-brained piece of political correctness

            Is there are any aspect of leftism that is complete horseshit?

            1. “Is there are any aspect of leftism that is complete horseshit?”

              Well, sure. For starters let me point you to the vast leftie ideas that the right is slowly coming around to….stuff like this article above, ending the war on drugs and mass incarceration, live and let live (gay stuff), not enforcing WOMB laws using the power of the state, not spending trillions on made-up wars…

              I could think of many more, but you guys are spinning around so quickly to our points of view that you will find out for yourself soon anyway. In summary, 90% of the bullshit coming out of the mouths of your Rand Paul types are right from the progressive agenda….but, being authoritarians, you can only see or believe it when it comes from “your leader”.

              See, I told you – it’s quite simple.

              1. You’re retarded; it’s quite simple.

              2. For starters let me point you to the vast leftie ideas that the right is slowly coming around to….

                This will be rich.

                …stuff like this article above, ending the war on drugs and mass incarceration…

                Those are libertarian ideas, actually. Your president didn’t give a shit about any of those things when he had a supermajority in Congress. We know that, because he didn’t push to pass legislation on any of it.

                live and let live (gay stuff)

                It was a Republican judge who shot down Prop 8 and set the precedent for all other future court rulings on the issue. Obama ignored that issue until then.

                not spending trillions on made-up wars…

                Syria and Iraq 2014, dipshit.

              3. All your list shows is that you’re either too stupid to understand what your ideology actually supports, or too much of a hypocrite to acknowledge that your ideology doesn’t pay more than lip service to any of those issues.

              4. I think you fake libertarian paulite Kochites are just trying to jump on the liberal and Clinton bandwagons and hijacking all progressive ideas that were never your own. Libertarians all supported the drug war until your hero Rush Windbag got caugth snorting cocaine or using prescription medicine and ever since have been screaming about legalization. probably because the Koch brothers are making so much money off of the drug war. Its a well known fact that ayn rand was against drugs and therefore libertarians were too until about 2008 when a black man got elected. You guys are a joke. Power to the people!

                1. The Libertarian Party has included decriminalization of drug use in its platform since it’s founding. Rush Limbaugh has NEVER been considered a Libertarian by anyone, nor ever called himself such. Ayn Rand was NOT a Libertarian, her philosophy is called “Randianism”, which is closer to a Platonic “Great Man” type of ideology, as might be found in “The Republic”, which many people, myself included, believe was actually an argument AGAINST letting philospher-kings, or “Guardians”, rule society.
                  The left, on the other hand, despite their penchant for mob-rule, distrusts the instincts of the common man, and believes that “Great Men” in government should force, or at least “nudge”, us into living the way they think we should; whether that conceit takes the form of mandatory recycling laws, “urban planning”, or attempts to influence people to take public transportation.
                  So, to sum: you are not only stupid, but uneducated as well.
                  But thanks for playing.

                  1. Dammit! “craiginASS” as opposed to “craiginMASS”, I only have so many hours of drunk-time allocated. You make me waste my time on your parodies!
                    They are very convincing, though. Are you also the new and improved Dunphy? Come on, we have enough real morons here to deal with.

                    1. I see how you got us confused but i think the other craig (no relation that i know of) is more articulate and a better arguer than i am but i am trying and probably soon i will be at least as good as him or maybe as good as tony. american socialist is also good but he is not as nuanced in his thinking i believe. but whatever rand lover! i might think you have something to say if you could convince me that you arent on the koch payroll and really are interested in fireproof buildings, emerging jim webb voters or nonfake libertarians. but i doubt you are so go back to whipping your slaves in their sweatshops.

                    2. lol. I don’t know whether to reply to you or not! very good, but the fact that his name is “craiginMASS” and you post as “craiginASS” makes me believe that you should just get a life.
                      Honestly now, are you also the new Dunphy? Enquiring minds want to know.

          4. Authoritarian- ‘favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom; of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority’

            This accurately describes the ‘nuanced’ worldview you subscribe to. Of course, I don’t expect you to actually know the definitions of the words you use, because to you the actual meaning of the word doesn’t matter. It’s just a cheap buzzword you throw about with no actual knowledge of the subject. Remember kids, say no to doublethink, or you’ll end up like craiginmass.

          5. yet we lament overkill

            Feelings are all you have. Thoughts and actions be damned!

            1. “Nuance” when a lefty uses it means “make shit up as we feel like it”.

          6. Yeah! What you said is correct. Koch Koch Koch Koch Koch Koch Koch Koch Koch Koch Koch 1% Koch 1% Koch fake-libertarian Koch Koch Koch 1% corporatist Koch Koch Koch 1% Paulite Koch Koch Neo-con Koch Koch fake-libertarian.

            See? I’m learning! I know how to make a Craig post too.

      2. Yeah, Kochs are definitely libertarian. Supporting censorship is what it’s all about:

        http://www.politico.com/story/…..99252.html

        http://www.reuters.com/article…..AF20141003

        You’re an idiot, Francisco.

        1. Where’s the censorship? I think teaching history with a conservative slant is just as dumb as teaching it with a liberal slant. I also think it’s silly to worry about what children are taught in school because most of them learn little from it.

          It sure is funny how every group the Kochs give a dollar to suddenly becomes a Koch group.

          1. They give a dollar, they support it. That’s how it works. It’s a good system, and I would never argue against it.

            Thinking that the Kochs are libertarian, though, is complete stupidity. They may have a few libertarian beliefs, but so does every other person on Earth.

            Teaching one version of history, leaving out facts that you don’t like is censorship, whether you’re doing it for a liberal or conservative cause.

            1. “Teaching one version of history, leaving out facts that you don’t like is censorship”

              Actually no, that’s called history. There is no magical objective or pure history, historians themselves admit to that. History is the interpretation of the past through a selective lens, be it traditional nationalism, Marxist thought, revisionist argumentation, etc. If you expect history, which is at its base the biased reconstruction of the past through selective sourcing, to be some objective notion of past reality, then you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand the concept of history in the first place.

              1. Please… do you really believe that crap. John?

              2. Historians will bend facts, and good ones will acknowledge examining through different lenses, depending upon their beliefs. What good ones will not do, however, is try to ignore or suppress facts.

                As an example, a decent historian from a Marxist background might say that capitalist pressure ultimately led to race riots in the 1960’s. Somebody engaged in censorship would try to teach people that they had never happened.

                1. “As an example, a decent historian from a Marxist background might say that capitalist pressure ultimately led to race riots in the 1960’s. Somebody engaged in censorship would try to teach people that they had never happened.”

                  The conservatives are downplaying and writing out that race riot and MLK stuff. Heck, Bachman says the Slave masters and slaves had fine christian relationships!

                  Sure, history is selective – but you MUST see the irony of folks who associate with the TEA PARTY then trying to make sure our youth doesn’t protest????

                  That’s conservatism. Not history.

                  1. WTF are you even talking about? Is there something in this disjointed mess of a post?

                2. It’s not what I ‘believe’ it’s the central concept of historiography. Historians distort and outright ignore facts based on their predetermined bias and the nature of their sourcing. It’s an entire argument within the discipline as to how sourcing and bias changes narrative.

                  “What good ones will not do, however, is try to ignore or suppress facts.” Actually, those ‘facts’ are determined from sourcing, and what sourcing a historian chooses matters in terms of the narrative or ‘facts’ presented. We don’t have some magic camera eye to the past, our knowledge is dependent on the bias and interpretations of primary and secondary sourcing material. Historians will openly pick and choose their sourcing dependent on their own views of its legitimacy and support for their argument. By your definition, this process of selection itself is ‘censorship’.

        2. OK, so where in the first link is the censorship and where in the second are the Kochs?

          1. Forming connections isn’t your strong suit, eh?

            First link is the Kochs supporting candidates.

            Second link is those (now board members) supporting what amounts to censorship.

            1. That’s not censorship.

    1. libertarians (at least the Koch-led types) tend to be authoritarians

      You are disqualified from espousing an opinion on libertarianism until you can demonstrate you actually know what it is.

      1. Maybe YOU are the one who should be disqualified because you won’t ever admit the truth of what most people know, e.g., that 99% of libertarians are just fake conservatives who want to control everybody the same way that their ancestors controlled slaves in the south. maybe if you decided to study some history you’d realize how assnine your comments are and what a joke you fake libertarians sound like to the average person on the street.

        At least american socialist knows whats up here. he has obviously studied history and politics which is much more than i can say that 99.99999 of the people posting on this site. this site is mostly fake libertarian neo cons or their deluded followers spouting the latest GOP talking points and acting like they are some kind of original geniuses who deserve the Nobel prize (which by the way Obama won, unlike you.)

      2. “You are disqualified from espousing an opinion on libertarianism until you can demonstrate you actually know what it is”

        Well, let me try.

        I spent a number of years of my life living in the woods simply where we got by for about a buck per day per person, grew our own food, went to work and learned trades, paid nothing or little in taxes (didn’t make enough), built my own cabin, had children delivered by midwives for barter, developed enterprises in renewables, healthy foods, etc.

        At no time during any of this did I vote or take a penny in any subsidies or welfare/food stamps. We paid our way…and have been doing it ever since.

        I started and ran a number of businesses from the ground up, employed people, created goods and services (patents, etc.) and developed them into small industries. Created major web sites built around education (in the conservation field). Put a couple kids through college and grad school….helped them buy their first houses. Now helping out their children.

        Paid my employees very well (yeah, I know that probably disqualifies all of the above).

        Am I getting close to defining it? Or, would it be better to just say “Libertarians are a-holes who yell statist, marxist, socialist and similar as word salad every chance they get and, instead of standing on their own two feet, take money from billionaires who wish to profiteer from them”?

        I think the later is closer, actually!

        1. You said it!

          The definition of a libertarian is a fake neocon who likes to crap all over the dreams of the poor and minorities and deny that they are paid in whole and part and parcel by the Koch brothers. they think ayn rand is better than fidel castro even though she never helped the poor one bit and took social security like it was no one’s business. They are almost all white except for kennedy, and she is at beast a neocon too. they are racist but pretend to call out affirmative action instead of just admitting they would like to own the south again. they say they are against military but favor the invasion of iraq. they say they are against the war on drugs but only because a black man is the current president. if a republican ever gets elected again, lets hope to god not, but if so they will be silent on the drug war once more. the only reason they might be against it is if white people start getting incarcerated at the rates brown and black people are. that’s the definition of a libertarian. oh, and they usually like lush windbag, even if they say “oh he’s a conservative, but i agree with a lot of what he says.” correction, they agree with all of it. they just want to be modern hipsters and not look like old mitch mcconnels or ron pauls because they figure if they have tattoos they arent conservatives like their old white parents who make all the rules and want to keep the brown people out.

  10. Must Conservatives Be Cop Lovers?

    Only if they want to live, the next time they’re pulled over.

    1. Setting aside the absurdity of that fear for anybody that understands the actual risks , which of course excludes the typical reason.com police bigot just as studies of the safety of airline flight are pointless to edifying the unjustified fears of an aviophobe, I’d be curious as to what percent of repubs vs. dems are strong supporters of police
      Polling data proves most Americans are, strongly so, however a breakdown done by political party would be interesting

      Smooches!

      1. I am curious dumphry. You previously cited multiple cases where a supervisor committed a crime by asking you to falsify reports. Can you tell me what happened when you filed a criminal complaint against those supervisors?

        This is a lose lose question for you btw. If you have experienced direct corruption on multiple occasions then you must recognize your department is corrupt. If prosecutors failed to prosecute those supervisors then they are corrupt. If you didn’t file criminal complaints you are corrupt.

        So humor me. How deep does the corruption go? All the way to you?

        Smooches

      2. There was an article here a few weeks ago about a young man designated driving a pair of drunk you women home for the evening.

        He gets pulled over, cop walks up to his car, kid reaches for his credentials and the cop blows his brains all over his girlfriend in the passenger seat.

        Pure panicfire moment. And it’s not the only case like that. Hell, I was reading an article months ago about a cop in prison after it was discovered he was raping toddlers in school. And here he is, the sick fuck.

        Fine, Dunph, maybe not all cops are brutal shitpants murderers, rapists, or theives. And not all of them get away with their crimes. But it is bad enough that a blanket response is validated. When you give someone authority, especially the kind of authority that a police officer has, they should be held to a higher standard of conduct, and for the most part they are not.

        Law enforcement is in a never ending loop of self-perpetuating corruption. Prosecutors, judges, and police all collaborate to abuse anybody they please, and there is very little defense against it.

        I don’t give two shits if good and worthwhile cops end up losing their jobs or lives. As long as they continue to perform these terrible acts and have near-total immunity from consequence, I will never care.

        In short, Dunphy, go fuck yourself.

        I’m convinced you’re Epi, though.

      3. “If you don’t want to get shot, suck my cock.”

  11. Nice. Scarborough is on Meet the Press, calling Ebola a biblical plague.

    God is coming to get you, America!

    1. Can we blame gay marriage?

      1. AND the Mexican pot smoking butt secks.

        1. That’s sects, Almanian, as in “The Sect of Pot Smoking Mexican Ass Sex.”

          They’re just monks, you see. Trying to find enlightenment the only way they know how.

  12. Forbes has an article about Dan Gilbert.

    AT ANY GIVEN TIME QUICKEN LOANS has a line of credit of about $3 billion to $4 billion for financing mortgages, selling most of the loans to other investors immediately to avoid long-term debt. During the housing boom Quicken Loans, like others, did what Gilbert calls “a little alternative lending,” but resisted subprime borrowers. “Our mortgage bankers would come in and say, ‘We’re losing business to these other guys!’ But it scared the hell out of me.”

    That’s because Quicken Loans was a private company. Gilbert worried that if it made subprime loans and sold them off, he’d be held personally responsible if borrowers defaulted. “We were absolutely collectible,” he says. “It was scary.”

    Fucking incentives- how do they work?

    1. HAHAHA
      I got this

  13. “crazy right-winger ”

    Nah… He’s just another pol looking to get elected from voters who.think their tax money goes to Black people. There’s nothing really special about him. Charismatic demagogues are a dime-a-dozen.

    1. voters who.think their tax money goes to Black people

      I hate you and everything about you in every way possible, but I have to admit that I actually know people who believe this. It’s fucking stupid.

    2. Preach on, brother! Paul is no doubt just another demogogue and not at all in the vain of true revolutionary politicians like Castro or Hugo Chavez or Bernie Sanders. He’s just a Koch funded schill meant to distract the working class away from their true enemies the capitalists and seize power the only way white pols have ever done it, e,g. by turning poor people and the middle class against minorities. Rand Paul is just a middleman between the Kochs and the white trash they want to control and he would gladly take medicine from seniors and food from the mouths of black babies just to ensure his whole party is gets as old as ron paul and as fat as chris christie.

      A message to the Koch’s: you will never be the princes of saudi arabia that you want to be here in america. The working class just wont allow it no matter how much you spend on your glutinous appetite for power.

  14. There’s nothing really special about him. Charismatic demagogues are a dime-a-dozen.

    That’s a surprisingly harsh thing for you to say about the President.

    1. “That’s a surprisingly harsh thing for you to say about the President.”

      Let’s see – Harvard Lawyer vs. Eye Doc who started his own org to approve his Doc license….

      Hmmm….I’ll have to think on that as far as qualification so, but we can settle the whole thing if we get a 7-11 clerk who will outshine both of them.

      1. “In 1995, Paul passed the American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO) boards on his first attempt and earned board-certification under the ABO for 10 years. In 1997, to protest the ABO’s 1992 decision to grandfather in older ophthalmologists and not require them to be recertified every 10 years in order to maintain their status as board-certified practitioners, Paul, along with 200 other ophthalmologists, formed the National Board of Ophthalmology (NBO) to offer an alternative ophthalmology certification system.

        So, wait, you think it’s a bad thing that he thought standards weren’t HIGH ENOUGH and he started an organization to improve them?

        Keeping in mind of course that this line ” started his own org to approve his Doc license….” is a lie, as he was already board certified by your approved government entity as a doctor.

        1. Sounds like your info came from Paul propaganda or from his minions putting stuff on Wikipedia.

          I’d ask you to read reporting from the Louisville Paper – his own state!

          Here is a wapo article – looks like his org came, went away, came and then went away again! Wow, can you imagine if you went to a Board Certified Doc and found out it was his wife and father who certified him in an org be made up out of thin air?

          Wow…..and, oh, at many of the times he claimed he was board certified, he was NOT by “your approved board”.

          Don’t worry – it will all come out along the the Racist stuff when he gets closer…..lots of ammo being held by his GOP opponents….but they don’t want to waste it this early in the game. Let him prop himself up and then they will knock him silly.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..r-problem/

          1. Yeah, Obama was a harvard lawyer! And he was black, so we can be sure he had to work extra hard to get in. They have higher standards for minorities and exclude them, which means that any black person who got into those top schools had to be extra super qualified. I bet if you look at the LSAT scores of those black people they will be way way higher than the white people getting into the same school because they dont have white privildge applied to their test scores. Its just a fact that obama went to harvard and therefore he’s smarter than any doctor. especially a white doctor who probably just got into school because his dad went there, unlike obama, who came from a single mom and who’s dad was in Africa somewhere when Obama’s mom got pregnant. Stop your Koch influenced talking points if you want to be taken seriously by those like me and the other craig and Tony and American Socialist and the rest of us who know whats up and arent swayed by your neo-con GOP lies.

            1. I’m having a hard time believing that anyone is this stupid.

              Ever hear of affirmative action? Blacks get into schools with LOWER scores, you moron. The diversity train has been running since before Obama went to school. He has steadfastly refused to release his transcripts, not because his grades are so much higher than his peers.

              I should have picked up on the fact that you’re trolling when you said that libertarians are authoritarians, unlike progs who value freedom, LOL.

              1. Affirmative action as you call it is just a code word for racism. sorry your white privilege feels violated because a more qualified black man got into harvard and you didn’t. i suppose you could of got in, though, if your dad went there because he was a rich white guy. since he didnt it must mean that you are one of those little foot soldiers running around doing the koch brother’s bidding. do they pay you buy the comment or by the word?

              2. “I’m having a hard time believing that anyone is this stupid.”

                Obviously you are too stupid to figure out you are answering a TROLL who copied my screen name with one different character………

                Libertarians are very easily fooled. Try to read a little closer…..

                1. Please stop saying that craig. just because my name is craig and your name is craig and we live in mass and i couldnt fit an M in my screenname doesn’t make me a troll. we are more like brothers anyway. you and i agree all the time about fake libertarians and neocons and emerging voters.

                2. That’s because he sounds just like you. You’re basically a parody of yourself.

          2. I’d ask you to read reporting from the Louisville Paper… Here is a wapo article

      2. Lawyers: the best represented special interest group in Washington…

      3. The past 5.5 years say a lot more about Obama’s qualifications to be president than his educational history (which he is so proud of that he refuses to release the records of it). If we could swap Obama with a random 7/11 clerk I would do it in a heartbeet.

      4. ROFLMAO, the Obama dead-enders are really out in force today I see. Keep fucking that chicken buddy.

        1. Speaking of Chicken Fuckers, if you guys truly think this is funny, you are my brothers…now and forever!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y8H7-MTqrg

      5. Harvard Lawyer

        Citation?

        1. “Citation”
          This depends on whether IS IS and whether Citation is Citation.

          Citation could mean “statist fellator” or something like that. Not being a kochsucker, I have no access to the secret codes.

          And being as many here pooh-pooh the thousands of pages of citations of climate change, coming up with something which would be of use may mean me having to pay for an all expense paid trip for Clarence Thomas – including ho’s to satisfy “long john silver”.

          All very tough….

          1. Harvard Lawyer, Economy Suppressor, Health Insurance Cancellor, International Standing Destroyer, Consort of the Food Nanny Wookkie, Holder of the Omnipotent Pen and Phone….

            1. “Harvard Lawyer, Economy Suppressor, Health Insurance Cancellor, International Standing Destroyer, Consort of the Food Nanny Wookkie, Holder of the Omnipotent Pen and Phone..”

              Well, if the doubling of the stock market and vast lowering of unemployment rates – and MORE people having health insurance and a BETTER standing internationally and healthier populace (obesity is at least ebbing)…..is “bad bad bad”, it’s backwards bizzarro day again!

              I suppose you’d like the stock maket at 7000 DJI again and health insurance raising by 10% plus per year (and dropping people) like it was under your Hero GW and his permanent Republican Majority?

              1. Where can I get some of what you’re smoking?

              2. Yeah the doubling of the stock market from a super low point in 2008/09 is helping the middle class because all that money spreads out and helps make everyone rich, which is what obama is all about: the middle class. I mean, I suppose fake Koch led paulite nonemerging voters would prefer the stock market at like 3000 as long as the Koch family was rich and they still all held onto their guns and white priviledge, but those of us who care about the middle class want to see the stock market rise. Obama knows that the higher stock market and high corporate profits means that the money will trickle down to those not doing as well. i bet if you had a high stock market under GW then you would be bragging about it, even with your food deserts and non fireproof buildings and chicago burning down.

                1. You’re fucking HILARIOUS!

                  You’re actually arguing for “trickle down” economics AND ascribing a belief in them to Obama! There’s just not much funnier that could be said, but you find it.

                  You’re claiming that leftists saved all the progtopias from the fate of Chicago…circa 1871! Thank god your benevolent Building and Safety nazi’s spared us from more of THAT!

                  Food “deserts,” you mean like places where the supermarket is more than five blocks away? Yeah, that’s a bummer, because here in CA (progtopia west) we just bombed grocery carrying back to the stone age of my youth. The one where cheap paper bags rip and spill your groceries all over your driveway, except now we have to pay cash for these useless bags. Yeah, that’s not going to reduce anyones grocery purchases. Please stop taking care of us.

  15. Lovely to see that prominent in the advertising eg signs, pamphlets, website etc expressing support of I-591, Washington’s pro gun rights legislation is the message “supported by over 7500 Police and Sheriifs”

    And it’s right at the top of the website

    http://wagunrights.org/

    It is also prominently displayed in the No on I-594 campaign, this being the opposing piece of legislation that ramps up gun-control and is seen as a major privacy incursion and rightly so

    Especially before the Internet age the media would always falsely laim police report of gun-control measures by using international Association of Chiefs of police and other copocrat organizations to create the false impression of widespread police report for the civil rights violations we refer to as gun control

    Of course this demonstrates that the proponents of the civil rights measures understand that the public supports and respects police and seeks out their opinion in matters such as this

    Of course this has already been proven conclusively by pulling data but corroborating data is always a good thing

    Yes this is the real America people outside the rarefied climate of circle jerking anticop bigotry we see here

    1. I have so much love and respect for the American people and the citizens of my fine state. It makes it that much more rewarding to be a public servant knowing of the broad-based support we have

      That is why no amount of wanking here and false claims about how everybody hates police and see this is why people hate police could ever affect a police officer who knows the actual statistics of support

      Washington state has a very good record of passing pro civil rights citizen initiatives such as I 591 passing.

      Our elected legislatures lean quite liberal and tend to pass a lot of anti-civil rights legislation but when it comes to citizen initiatives the opposite is true

      Let’s hope I 591 passes and reinforces our strong civil rights stance towards the right to keep and bear arms

      Of course many influential prosecutors and of course the liberal anti-police newspapers like the times support the gun control measure I 594

      Let’s hope the people win and these statists lose!

      Let’s maintain Washington states excellent record of strongly supporting the right to keep and bear arms
      Smooches

      1. bd;dr

        (by Dunphy;didn’t read)

        1. Ignorance is bliss

          Why would an anti-cop bigot want to have his prejudices vitiated by evidence that people love the police and police are strong supporters of civil rights?

          Cognitive dissonance hurts ideologues

          Bragging about not reading my post reminds me of people who brag about getting out of jury duty. Yes God for bid you should want to effect positive change in the criminal justice system by serving on a jury
          ‘La la la I’m not listening derp derp’

          Smooches!

          1. Ignorance Arrogance is you. Long winded blowhard.

          2. anti-cop bigot

            I’ll be more supportive of the profession when they are held to the same legal standard as everyone else.

          3. I keep reading your posts and wondering why everyone hates you. While I hate a cop circle jerk and blue-boy worshipping as much as the next guy, you seem… well… like a decent human being who’s filling in as a cop.

            Just tell me, are no-knock SWAT raids necessary for a half-ounce of pot?

    2. So you’re abandoning any defense of cops who work for city police departments, and other departments with a non-elected head?

  16. Shaping up to be quite a day. Already got Dunphy, Craig and A-S. Glad I’ll miss it.

    1. Grab your teddy bear and your blankie because I’m here now too. Here comes the scary part. Look away for the sake of your rigidly dogmatic worldview.

      1. I’m glad you are here, Lear. You must not have a dogmatic worldview so you should be prepared to not be welcomed. those with non simplisitic views are not appreciated here. basically if you dont support the koch agenda they will accuse you of being a commie. unfortunately for them you and a few others come here armed with facts and they hate that because the koch $$$ < facts.

        1. lol, ah yes, the insidious, Machiavellian, Libertarian Conspiracy to take over the world and leave you the hell alone! Watch out: if we take over, you may be free!

          1. Free to starve on the corner? Free to toil in the fields and sweatshops with all the black people and poor people and minorities that you would like to put back in chains unless they are willing to stump for the koch bros agenda? Or free to join your evil cabal of strategizers in the war on women?

            Its a big relief that i;ll finally be free to have my significant other get a back ally abortion with a coat hanger if you fake libertarians have your way, what with non fireproof buildings and coal spewing out over them all courteousy of the koch brothers. thank you very much. at least the bible said you should be kind to your slaves but i suppose you probably only chose the parts you like as always.

  17. Awesome article with some nice detailed narratives and supporting video camera footage of officers.
    My favorite incident involves a off-duty LAPD officer who is ruffed up and arrested by another police officer and promptly fired from his job.

    I am certain that the LAPD investigators who fired him relied on due process (rolls eyes)

    Outcome: helped substantially by an audio recording and note also that the off-duty police officer pleaded with onlookers to record the incident

    Officer found not guilty and awarded over one quarter million by the jury

    He also got his job back

    I strongly suspect he either did or will get back pay for whatever time he was off duty as well

    The article doesn’t say what the process is pending or completed against the officer who arrested him

    Either way a cop gets redress against a bad officer just like any other person is more likely to get redress against a bad officer facilitated substantially by audio or video recordings

    The article mentions that recordings can help punish bad officers they can help clear good officers from false complaints and they can help people get redress against officer misconduct which are all smart conclusions and ones I have been advocating here extensively

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po…..ated-cops/

    Booya body cameras, dash cams and audio recording!

    RECORD THE POLICE. IT IS YOUR CIVIC DUTY AND I’M ALL ABOUT CIVIC DUTY

    Smooches!

    1. Many police think they can order citizens to stop filming them:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr13OjWC09s

      1. I have contacted numerous times that in many many cases police have tried to stop people from filming Police etc and that that is always wrong

        Not sure who you are preaching to others probably a perfect example of how you misunderstand my positions since I have stated many many times that those guys are wrong

        In some cases there is even bad legislation that empowers them to do so unconstitutionally but over time we have seen some remedy

        So derpity derp derp

    2. I recognize that most police interactions are peaceful and that they even sometimes actually protect people and stop crime.

      That is not the issue.

      The issue is that whenever a cop does something horrible, something for which anyone else would surely be arrested and prosecuted, the cop either gets no punishment or a much lighter punishment.

      That is bullshit and until it changes, I will have very little respect for them or the so-called criminal justice system.

      1. I am confident of some things

        1) you sincerely believe what you just posted
        2) no amount of data, case cites or anything else will sway you in your belief

        I have experience in 3 different depts and extensive case study The overwhelming majority of which are not even reported in the media so of course the way public has no access to them

        1) cases where they were justly accused there was sufficient evidence and they were duly punished. Sentences tended to be harsher than were Given for the same offence committed by a person who is not a police officer and Had a similar unblemished criminal record

        There was even a case in my state where a judge was quoted by the media as saying he chose to give an officer a much harsher sentence than he would have given a noncop in the same situation specifically because the person was a cop and this was not even an on duty incident

        Three of my friends had been charged with assault where it was clearly unjustified and all three were acquitted and that’s a darn good thing

        I have absolutely seen examples that correspond with your claim but in my obviously much more extensive experience than yours in my experience the opposite of what you say is true

        1. Again I am100% confident based on my past experience here that nothing Under the sun will ever change your mind about what you claimed

          I have found several venues and many cases where people who have opinions like yours are willing to change their minds however I am 100% confident it will not happen here

          To give an example I have found people at volokh.com to be very receptive to Data and legal argumentation

          So I respect that your viewpoint is sincerely held but I do not agree with it I do not think is supported by Data and I think it’s useless t to try to change

          1. If a person is willing to apply process analysis instead of results analysis

            Is willing to research case law use of force policy and force science

            Is willing to research constitutional law

            Z then at least they would be armed with the tools to analyse use of force whether or not they come to a correct conclusion

            Balko understands this stuff

            To give one example of what I mean


            I say: that UOF appears unjustified, especially in the 9th circuit post McPherson

            Anticopper says: so you are saying he should be charged! What sentence would be appropriate?

            Note that the response shows a complete misunderstanding of what I’m justified even means

            All criminal use of force are unjustified but not all unjustified uses of force a criminal and this is just one example of the kind of deep-seated assumptions that run contrary to law and everything else necessary to analyse the use of force including use of force by people other than cops

            I am more than happy to post and discuss examples of unjustified police use of force such as the one I just posted in the other thread where a cop tased a woman in the back as she ran away and it was apparently completely unjustified and apparently criminal and I said so

            Cheers!

            1. stop crapping everywhere not-very-good-fake dunphy

              1. Just speaking truth to power and enjoying the fact that outside of here the public loves and respects us and we tend to get pretty fair treatment although sometimes Copocrats will abuse our rights

                Many of my compatriots and I have won lawsuits and quite considerable money so it is possible to get redress when there is abuse

                BOOYA lawsuits

                1. Just speaking truth to power

                  By shitting all over the place here? No “brah”, shut the fuck up and knock it off.

                2. the public loves and respects us

                  “It wasn’t rape, she is in love with me, she begged for it!”

        2. “no amount of data, case cites or anything else will sway you in your belief”

          This is called projection.

          To pick but one of the many recent examples of police abuse, has a single one of the SWAT twats been fired or arrested after they burned a baby with a flash bang grenade? Their names have not even been publicized.

          Cops are not held to higher standard- they are hardly held to any standards at all.

          1. No it’s called truth

            The facts are that plenty of cops are charged and convicted

            Heck, one of my former co-workers got a 10 year sentence

            That sentence is clearly in excess of what a person who was not a cop and with a perfect record would have gotten but of course you will ignore the excessive sentences and only concentrate on the lenient ones

            Ideologues like you will do what they always do which is selectively choose examples that support your preconceived prejudices

            Smooches!

            1. Jesus Christ, Dunphy. Does anybody in your department do anything other than fuck up?

        3. 2) no amount of data, case cites or anything else will sway you in your belief

          Your anonymous anecdotes are not data.

  18. I get the feeling that the way the govt will fix that disparity in incarcerations won’t be to lock up less brown people but rather to lock up more white ones.

    1. Well also last I checked they lock-up women depending on the type of offence anywhere from 1.3 times as often to more than 20 times as often as men

      So they need to fix this gender disparity as well as racial disparity since it’s clearly Iunjust

  19. The issue is that whenever a cop does something horrible, something for which anyone else would surely be arrested and prosecuted, the cop either gets no punishment or a much lighter punishment.

    But- DUE PROCESS! Hand picked union-approved arbitrators are much more qualified than jurors.

  20. I know it’s electorally beneficial, but really don’t like that Paul is plaing the race card here. The high black incarceration rate is caused by that group’s higher poverty rates and greater tendency to live in densely populated areas, not racism. Rural whites are far more likely to wind up in jail than suburban whites, but nobody screeches about the justice system discriminating in that case.

    1. When you correct for income, disparities widely go away which is proof that the justice system is extremely unfair on account of income versus race

      Not to get all Chris Rock here but that’s why OJ gets away with murder and many poor of any race get wrongly convicted

      Getting away with a murder is a bad thing but it is structurally designed it to happen in a system where it is better that 10 guilty go free then that one innocent is convicted

      However an innocent man being convicted is a far far worse thing than a guilty man going free

      There is no easy solution in a system that rewards good lawyering and good lawyering tends to cost more than bad lawyering

      1. My point wasn’t necessarily about the justice system being unfair for poor people — though that is true to some extent, it is often overplayed — it was more about poor people in dense populations actually being more likely to commit crimes.

    2. Wrong. Blacks are arrested for MJ usage more than whites despite using MJ at the same rate. This isn’t the ‘race card’ this is reality. Many PD’s are clearly racist.

      1. No, blacks disproportionately live in areas of greater police presence (because of the higher crime rate).

  21. if you don’t have the correct understandings of premises and basic facts and you refuse to use process analysis etc you will not come to a deductively valid conclusion make a sound argument by anything other than chance

    I will give you a p brooks example from his above comment

    He sarcastically references his erroneous reference to arbitrators specifically that I am saying that arbitrators are better finders of fact Vs juries implying that the latter act to take place of the former

    LISTEN CAREFULLY BECAUSE THIS IS THE KIND OF WRONG ON THE FACTS STUFF THAT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE BIIGOT TO UNDERSTAND LET ALONE COME TO A VALID ARGUMENT

    arbitrators and Juries act in completely different venues for completely different purposes

    An arbitrator is not handpicked by a union first of all he is agreed upon by both the union and the police department who have generally opposing goals

    1. f my union says we want this arbitrator the department has to agree to it

      And if the department says we want this arbitrator the same is true of the Union

      So that’s his first falsely held belief

      Second of all the arbitrator is completely tangential to a jury

      If a cop is criminally charged an arbitrator has nothing to do with that and will not even come into play until after the trial is over

      The jury is there if the guy is charged to determine if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the cop committed a crime

      1. The arbitrators job is to look over the administrative case that the department has against the cop and of course he can look at what occurred during the criminal trial as well after it occurs

        Example is a cop gets accused by department of unlawful force and also gets charged for assault the arbitrator has no say in any of this

        The cop goes to trial and the jury acquits

        The department decides regardless of the acquittal they have a strong enough case to fire the officer since they have a lower standard evidence and can fire the officer even if he did not actually commit a crime

        They fire the officer

        The union believes that the departments decision was wrong for any number of reasons and files a grievance

        The department and the union together have to agree on an arbitrator for the case

        The arbitrator reviews all the data plus conducts his own depositions so she can fill in any holes that were not answered by the trial

        Then he decides whether the department used to process and whether they met their standard of evidence

        If he determines the department did not do those things and fired the officer unjustly the officer get’s job back and any backpay including overtime he would’ve done during the period he was fired

        1. So you can see that these facts and this is nonhypothetical this is exactly what happened in several cases in my department you can see that these facts conflict with what p brooks said and implied

          Hth

          1. either more meds or less, whatever you’re on isn’t currently working

    2. Dunphy, you really give police a bad name.

  22. dunphybot shitstorm

    noxious runny fecal splash

    dull preening wanker

    1. *Bamboo rods clink together several times*

      *japanese man in kabuki says whooooooa in background*

  23. Paul went further, encouraging Republicans to consider what it feels like to be on the receiving end of excessive police force and excessive criminal punishment. “Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system,” he said, “it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them.

    Police force and criminal punishments indeed show a great deal of racial disparities. And “their government” is indeed particularly targeting them. But that simply reflects the populations of people who commit crimes. Since murder and violent crime rates are at least ten times as high among young African American males, young African American males are expected to be stopped, searched, and arrested disproportionately, including innocent ones. How could it be any different?

    Most police and criminal justice issues are not federal issues; presidential candidates should stay out of it.

  24. Definition of derptastic stupidity ?

    Today’s winner: P Brooks

    Brooksie, thinking that arbitrators are hand picked union tools when they are picked by both the police admin AND tge union, who are adversaries in these cases

    It would be like him saying a person was handpicked by the prosecutor when in fact the prosecutor and a defense attorney agreed on that person

    Brooksie also thinking that arbitrators somehow replace, supersede or vitiate juries.

    Arbitrators deal with completely different questions in a completely different venue and with completely different results than juries. Juries have exactly the same power in a police case as they do in any non-police case and arbitrators have zero power to affect a jury’s verdict to or a court’s sentence

    1. Arbitrators are also not unique to police to inform the typical bigot who always makes false claims about double standards. There are plenty of situations where employees and employers have agreed to contract with arbitrators to settle disputes just like many police departments do

      He get special points for being completely dismissive of civil rights due process and all the other protections he screams about when he thinks cops have violated them but has no respect for them when a cop has had his ones violated

      And of course as a person who holds such absurd and discriminatory double standards he is prone to complain about them in situations where they do not exist which gets extra irony points

      Prize: well stupidity is its own reward but he also gets the pleasure of observing how the real world works where adults make decisions about police and justice and where he has no ability to effect a positive change and must accept that he is just engaging in a circle jerk with fellow travelers

      I think that might make him a sad panda but you never know it might incentivize him to get some understanding

      Hth

      1. He get special points for being completely dismissive of civil rights due process and all the other protections he screams about when he thinks cops have violated them but has no respect for them when a cop has had his ones violated

        Ah, there’s your mistake: you think that this is a symmetrical situation. It’s not. As a cop, you need to follow strict legal requirements of due process and civil liberties when dealing with the public; failure to do so is a serious offense.

        Due process, on the other hand, has little to do with employment. As a cop, you ought to be employed “at will” like most other Americans. Except for unlawful discrimination, firing a cop should not involve either arbitrators or due process.

        You seem to be so far removed from the real world and have such an entitlement mentality that you think that having a job is a legal right you have. You keep demonstrating what the problem with police around the country is.

        1. It has often been Reason’s position that government employees have special rights that the rest of us schlubs do not. Such as, the right not to be fired for things you say, etc.

          1. Government has a special duty not to use tax dollars to promote particular agendas. When government engages in discrimination, the aggrieved party is the tax payer, not the employee.

            In any case, even when employee rights may be violated, it’s the employee that sues the government, so I don’t see how
            “due process” would apply to the firing itself.

    2. Is the relationship between the police administrators and police unions truly adversarial? From what I’ve seen it’s not.

    3. the police admin AND tge union, who are adversaries in these cases

      Riiiiiiight…. because the police admins are NOT also members of the union… oh wait, they are. And because “the thin blue line” must never be crossed… and because cops testify against their fellow cops ALL THE TIME, while never suffering adverse consequences.

      Then:

      Juries have exactly the same power in a police case as they do in any non-police case

      Because jurors, DA’s and judges are NEVER prejudiced in favor of the police, willing to believe whatever lie the authorities tell, nor are jurors EVER worried about the repercussions they may face for daring to vote to convict one of the King’s Men.
      Fuck off, slaver.

  25. Conservative here. I don’t like cops.

  26. Too long to read all that shit.

    Question though. Why does Tony post as craig and why does the fake dumphy post at all?

    1. hmm, you think Tony is craig? I seem to recall Tony being more… coherent. Proper use of dictation and grammar, etc, while occasionally offering a truly valid point. I think that the new Dunphy and craiginass are the same person, who desperately needs to get a life.

      1. Tony coherent and offering truly valid points. Hang on.

        Ayup, on the wrong site again. My bad.

        1. I did use the word “occasionally”.

  27. Really is a different crowd of trolls and derpers on the weekend. Interesting.

  28. So what’s the incarceration rate of Asians, Muslims, non white Jews? Pretty low, even though cops are racist?

    The uncomfortable truth is that there’s a chunk of the black community that live in poverty and find themselves in trouble with the law in some way. White commit some crimes at the same rate as blacks, but they’re like 70% of the country and spread all over the country. I figure more than half of them have the resources or influence to save themselves. Suburban kids who use crack in their affluent, safe neighborhood aren’t as likely to be arrested by cops than blacks in the ghetto.

    Cops have issues with excessive tazing, chokeholds, and not respecting property rights. They’re unionists. That’s true just about everywhere else. And as tragic as police abuse can be, they’re just not as common as you think, especially compared to the rest of the world.

    I was stopped (not arrested) by cops a few times, and one of them immediately asked me if I could speak English. So yeah, some cops probably operate under stereotypes. But I was civil, gave the officer what he wanted, and he thanked me politely and moved on.

    You don’t live in a police state, not even close. If a cops in certain towns have a pattern of targeting certain people, then it can addressed in a variety of ways.

  29. Every agency is different. Police departments nationwide are getting equipment to help them fight crime. At times the use of the equipment does seem excessive, and no plan is ever perfect until its finished. However, the police should not be required to wear bubble wrap and a banana hammock when fighting crime because people think they are too scary with body armor and black rifles. Are we going to make the TSA stop using bomb detectors and weapon detectors for passengers boarding planes since we have only been attacked once? Are banks going to no be able to use armored cars since people don’t rob the armored cars? The military themselves should then stop using the latest technology to defend themselves while on the battlefield if the people deem it too scary. The redistribution of that equipment from the fighting forces in the military is going to our local cities instead of leaving them in the desert to rot or allow our enemies the materials and resources to fight us with our own equipment.

  30. No. In fact, they must NOT be, in order to qualify as true conservatives. Agents of the state exist only to expand and preserve its power and authority?not to reduce it and give it back to the people, which is supposed to be the essence of conservatism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.