Police Abuse

Watch Montana Officer Shoot Man to Death, Then Yell Orders at Him, Then Call in Medical a Minute Later [UPDATED]


Montana officer Grant Morrison was found not culpable for shooting Richard Ramirez to death during a traffic stop last April, claiming he feared for his life because he thought Ramirez' hand was reaching for a nonexistent weapon.

After much testimony from police officers about what a bad guy Ramirez was and how he was high on meth, despite video evidence (below) that provides no evidence for Morrison's assertion other than that he was aggressive and high strung and hostile, but does show him continuing to shout bullying orders after opening fire and taking nearly a minute to call for medical help, Morrison was not charged.

AP account from KOAA, excerpt:

A jury at a coroner's inquest determined Wednesday that a Montana police officer was justified in shooting and killing an unarmed man high on methamphetamine during a traffic stop….

The seven-person jury deliberated about an hour before delivering its decision.

Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito said he does not expect to file any charges given the jury's decision…

Billings Police Chief Rich St. John said it was the fifth officer-involved shooting in his eight years as head of the department. Each shooting was ruled to be justified, he said.

"That tells us we're doing the right thing in the right way," St. John said…

This was Morrison second killing of a citizen in the line of duty; he also faced no charges in that case, also because he said the murdered Jason Shaw was reaching for a BB gun.

Morrison was placed on paid leave after the Ramirez killing and is now investigating, wait for it, prescription drug crimes.

There is nothing in the video by the way, or in anything that the officer said to the four people in the car he pulled over in it, that shows any obvious legitimate reason for the stop to have occurred in the first place. (All the press reports merely blandly refer to a "traffic stop," no reason given or apparently necessary. You are in motion through the world, you are open season for a cop to hassle you, and given the vagueness of so much traffic law and the Whren v. U.S. decision, that's pretty much true.

[UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Notorious GKC for pointing out something I shamefully missed: while not clear from the video, and not mentioned in most of the press accounts which refer to "traffic stop" and not "shooting investigation stop," the Daily Inter Lake clip I link below does quote authority's claiming that the officer thought Ramirez had been involved in a shooting earlier that day. Apologies for missing that. More about that in this Missoulian clip, again from when the shooting occurred and not this week, which says that Morrison had already identified Ramirez as being in the car before he pulled it over. You can decide whether any larger point about the dangers of traffic stops remains.]

UPDATE UPDATE: Now this more detailed account of Morrison's testimony from Billings Gazette says he did not identify Ramirez as being in the car til after he'd pulled it over, so perhaps there is a polemical point about traffic stops to be made after all. You decide!]

It bears repeating: the more bullshit reasons police have to even initiate an encounter with a citizen, the more both citizen and even cop are at risk; and that the pettiest of traffic and other rules that give police a chance to initiate a confrontation with citizens at their will deserve more serious thought than people tend to give them.

The Montana News Association excoriates local police's attitude toward citizens in traffic stops that can lead to these tragic results.

If you want to feel like Ramirez surely deserved it, this contemporaneous report from Montana's Daily Inter Lake has details on how bad and druggy the murdered man and his family are. Again, none of this seems to have any bearing on the event as presented in the video.

See the video. Disturbing, natch:

Hat tip: Free Thought Project.

NEXT: Republicans Aren't Going to Raise the Gas Tax

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. From the Daily Inter Lake article:

    “Authorities said the officer had been pursuing the car in which Ramirez was a passenger because he’d been named as a suspect in a Sunday robbery in which a 61-year-old man was shot in the arm.”

    1. My grievous error. Post updated at that point. Thanks.

    2. Weirdly tho GKC a more detailed report on Morrison’s own testimony now linked above says he did NOT I.D. Ramirez as in the car til AFTER he’d stopped it….

      1. The cop *claims* he recognized Ramirez as as the suspect before shooting him. And he calls him “Richard” in the video.

        1. The entire point I was trying to make by raising the question was about the reason for the stop, not his relationship with Ramirez. Your original correction of me was relevant to THAT and I at first thought proved I was way offbase even raising the “why the stop?” issue. Further reading on Morrison’s testimony makes that once again an interesting issue, to me at least.

          1. OK, I’m curious too.

            1. There seems to be some…*tension* between the two accounts.

              1. I’ll see what I can find from the department tomorrow when business hours start and update if I learn anything valuable.

  2. This officer was terrified. Absolutely terrified. What a joke. Even if they can’t get an indictment against him they could at least fire him for not being fit to serve. He’s a threat to anyone who happens to put him on edge, regardless of whether they are actually trying to do so.

    1. Wait until you have to go over a notorious serial killer zombie who died a year before.

  3. God dammit, Montana. This is why no one takes us seriously.

    1. I take you seriously.

    2. I won you to mee my lil fwiend

    3. Come now. We Montanans are trying to make national headlines here!

      1. At what cost! Won’t somebody think of the children?

        1. There are no children here, ma’am. Only rugged Montana mountain men and women.*

          *strip Missoula from your mind…

    4. This guy takes Montana seriously

      1. Your average Rooskie always does have a plan.

  4. Billings Police Chief Rich St. John said it was the fifth officer-involved shooting in his eight years as head of the department. Each shooting was ruled to be justified, he said.

    “That tells us we’re doing the right thing in the right way,” St. John said…

    Really? Because it tells me something else entirely.

    1. They’re doing things the right way in terms of minimizing the consequences to the officers. Did you think he meant something else?

    2. You can’t listen to Rich.

      He used to have a weekly spot on this local morning radio show I liked to listen to. One day they were talking about the previous night’s “random police check point.” I couldn’t listen to the entire show after that.

      1. Wait, DUI checkpoint or just random checkpoint? Because I’m pretty sure the latter is unconstitutional (the former should be, but that’s another matter entirely).

        1. Random check point–they look over your license and registration, and they’ll give you a breathalyzer or field sobriety tests if they think it’s warranted.

          The unconstitutionality of it is why I stopped listening. Someone called in and said he’d gone through the checkpoint, but refused to submit to anything. He was all, “Am I being detained? Am I free to go?” the whole time until they finally let him go, scratching their heads. Rich was not actually at the checkpoint, of course.

          But the radio hosts and Rich were both ENRAGED at his affront to the officers’ authoritah.

          1. That sounds like a sobriety check point to me. Don’t know why they wouldn’t just call it that, since there does seem to be a magical, invisible exception for DUI enforcement in the constitution.

            1. Something something FYTW clause

  5. Also, did the cop park his car on the tracks. Because if not he was awfully close. Hilarity could have ensued instead of tragedy…

  6. Also, has there ever been anyone named Grant Morrison who was worth more than a bucket of shit?

  7. Is there ever going to come a day when there is finally accountability in one of these cases?

  8. Was the jury hearing held in public? If so, then what did they hear which prompted them to exonerate the cop?

    I’m not going to dismiss a jury verdict without some reason to do so.

    1. This wasn’t a trial jury. It was a coroner’s jury. And as far as I can tell, it wasn’t public (coroner’s juries generally aren’t).

      1. “If an inquest is held, the proceedings are public.”


    2. All but three of the 15 people called to testify during the two-day inquest were from law enforcement. Several police officers spoke at length about their prior dealings with Ramirez and others in his family.

      The seven-person jury deliberated about an hour before delivering its decision.

  9. You know, Reason, I’ve come to expect nutpunches from you guys. It comes with the territory.

    But today? Today you’ve been just plain malevolent.

  10. It cannot be stressed enough that absolutely any encounter you might have with police, for any reason, could be an encounter with this guy or someone like him. It doesn’t matter if there are “good cops”. It doesn’t matter if you’re not doing anything wrong. You encounter this guy, and he gets spooked? You’re dead. That’s it. You get pulled over for changing lanes inappropriately…you could be dead. Neighbors call in a noise complaint? You could be dead.

    It’s absolutely insane that society tolerates literal mad dogs that face absolutely no consequences for killing people just roam around at will and with a tremendous amount of power. Just hope you don’t meet him.

    1. It’s because things like that only happen to other people, and they MUST have been doing something…

      Also, from my wanderings around the web for the last 20+ years, I have come to the conclusion that people love to be divided up into tribes and pitted against one other. This is a god send for politicians. It’s how they keep control no matter how corrupt they become.

      There is no thinking outside of the tribe for most people. Tribal fueds typically go something like this:

      You teabagger cons are bible thumpin uneducated hillbillies! This is all about white redneck cops shooting innocent black kids!

      You libtards are drug addicted muslim faggots! This is all about black hoodlum druggies attacking innocent cop heroes!

      There is no in between much unless you stray over into that weird libertarian tribe and those guys are so confused that they don’t know what side they’re on!

      1. I have come to the conclusion that people love to be divided up into tribes and pitted against one other. This is a god send for politicians. It’s how they keep control no matter how corrupt they become.

        Yes, this is 100% correct. And it really fucking sucks.

        1. We’re three steps out of the cave with a lot of shiny toys.


          If some calamity happened that destroyed all of our accumulated wisdom stored texts and such, our species would be back to wearing skins and chasing animals with rocks and sticks.

          People are stupid. You’re stupid. I’m stupid. But we all have our own specialty, and when we team up through the invisible hand of the market, we’re magnificent!

          1. You’re a towel!

          2. We’re like monkeys with cell communication devices riding around in 2 ton steel death machines. Really, I agree 100%.

            1. Fuck. We are so awesome!

            2. Now where’s that monkey with the C4?

            3. I wanna a hurdy gurdy!

              1. Seriously though, a hurdy gurdy can be pretty cool. While I saw this show live in Denver twice, I have no interest in learning to play the instrument.


          3. We are all only as good as the world allows.

      2. I think that libertarian tribal instincts are taking over in this case, in that so many people are assuming that the jury must be wrong. Juries can be wrong, but it’s customary to cite some evidence when arguing this.

        1. This may be the next Michael Brown case – “OMG they killed a gentle giant!”

        2. Libertarians have a natural distrust for authority.

          That makes us unusual, since most of society has an innate desire to ask permission and obey orders.

          1. Some orders, like “bow down and worship an idol” or “help me persecute these minorities,” should be rejected, but if there’s one kind of order I’m inclined to obey, it’s an order from a gun-wielding cop to put my hands up.

            1. Yeah, sure. I would probably do the same. But is that because you think that it’s the right thing to do or because you might get shot by an angry man with a small dick if you don’t?

              1. I wouldn’t sort out my motives at that juncture – if I thought he was illegally threatening me I might consider suing afterwards.

            2. I respect that cops have the power to lock me in a cage and write up false paperwork to justify it. That doesn’t mean that they have the authority to do so. Power and authority are not synonyms.

              1. The more I think about it, I think that it’s not so much authority that libertarians distrust, but power. I’m still muddling out the distinction between the two.

          2. That makes us unusual

            It also makes us smart.

            1. I think of smart as learning from your own mistakes (whew, I won’t do that again), wise as learning from the mistakes of others (that was dumb bro, I ain’t gonna try that), and stupid as not learning (aw fuck it, that looks like fun).

              By that definition I would like to think we are wise.

              1. I think of smart as learning from your own mistakes

                I guess that leaves out the leftists.

                1. That was my point.

    2. See? Same logic with cops as with Moslems. Although the vast majority of them are just fine, a sizable enough number are dangerous that you’d better do what they say.

  11. “This was Morrison second killing of a citizen in the line of duty”

    Statistically, that alone is enough to alert any non-retard that he is a big fucking problem.

    1. Especially in a little city like Billings. He’s not patrolling downtown Detroit, for Pete’s sake.

  12. “Shots fucking fired!”

    There’s that new professionalism

    1. Because gratuitous profanity must mean you’re in command of the situation. WTF stupid ass training are cops actually getting?!

  13. Maybe the cop didn’t initially know Richard Ramirez was in the back seat, but in the video you can hear the cop yelling “Richard!”

    “[The cop] told the jury that he commanded all four people in the car to put their hands up and they all initially complied, but the man in the back right passenger seat, quickly identified by Morrison as Ramirez, dropped his left hand several times.

    “Morrison went on to say that he thought Ramirez might be reaching for a gun, especially since he’d been named as the suspect in the previous night’s shooting.”

    1. I see your point. Maybe we don’t know something important. And by some standards perhaps the shooting was justified. But by my standard, it is the cop’s job to wait until he is sure that someone poses a deadly threat before using deadly force against them. As there apparently was no weapon, that clearly was not the case. It’s their job to take on that risk so other people don’t have to.

      1. It’s their job to take on that risk so other people don’t have to.

        Not according to them it’s not, and no one seems to be telling them otherwise any more.

      2. I’m not sure if the law has evolved that far yet.

        The context is he’s told a shooting suspect to put his hands up, and the suspect doesn’t. The guy is on notice not to make sudden moves, and I could even argue he’s assumed the risk of getting shot.

        This isn’t a kid playing in the park and someone dropped a dime on him while admitting the gun could be fake.

        1. “the guy” = the suspect

    2. Sure, but it once again raises, for obsessives like me, the question of why the car was pulled over to begin with.

      1. Yeah, the two press stories seem in conflict, at least one of those reporters may have been phoning it in.

    3. Why do you not wait the 2 minutes for the backup if this guy is suspected of having already shot someone earlier and therefore presumed to be armed and dangerous. Unless your looking to shoot somebody.

      1. 2 minutes for back up? In Montana?

        1. The backup was there before the video even ends.

  14. I was snorting a couple of lines of coke one day with a cop in uniform in South Texas a few decades ago.

    He got a call on his radio saying, “shots fired in a domestic dispute”. He finished his lines and said, “I’m gonna wait for the bullets to quit flying before I go over there”, and he did.

    1. I knew a New Jersey cop back in the 80s who was a big cokehead. He was a friend of a friend, as normally I don’t much like the type of people who are cops and don’t associate with them. What a huge effing hypocrite. He was doing lines of coke with pretty teenage girls, but he’d eff up your life if you were a coke user or dealer he came across in the line of duty.

      I regard cops the same way I do feral pit bulls: you don’t “respect” them the way you respect your father, you respect them because they’re dangerous, vicious and unpredictable and can ruin your day if the mood hits them.

    2. Sounds like an episode of “Homicide” but with coke.

  15. “Hands up! Get on the ground! Get out of the car! Put your hands on the backseat!”

    So, which of these orders, punctuated for authoritative, tough guy emphasis with an expertly deployed “FUCK,” is the victim supposed to follow?

    1. I would go with the course of action which involves keeping my hands in plain sight and not making sudden movements.

      1. But how do I know my hands are in the officer’s line of sight at any given point while he’s holding a gun on me and stepping back and forth? And what if he prioritizes the order I don’t comply with ahead of the order I do comply with? And what is a sudden movement? Surely I can’t be expected to keep my hands up forever. My shoulders aren’t very strong.

        Or, maybe, Officer Call of Duty could have waited to pull his gun until he had more facts…like someone in the car was armed.

        1. I’m going to give the jury the benefit of the doubt, recognizing that like anyone else they could be wrong but at least they got a fuller picture than I’m getting.

          1. Likely true. Not knowing the statutes of Montana, it’s equally likely that the coroner’s decision was a foregone conclusion and the inquest merely a sham to assuage the public that “something was done.”

            1. Sham or not, the hearing was obligatory:

              “the county attorney shall order the coroner to hold an inquest if the death of a person occurs…while a person is being taken into custody or is in the custody of a peace officer or if the death is caused by a peace officer, except when criminal charges have been or will be filed.”


        2. Really? You think a cop stopping a suspect in a shooting should keep his gun in his holster until he’s sure the suspect is actually armed?

          There are lots of incidents and things to criticize the police about. Actually stopping suspects wanted for violent offenses is not one of them. That’s the whole point the police should exist.

          1. If we’re going to return to “wanted dead-or-alive” bounty hunting as the de facto form of law enforcement, can we at least do away with the useless tax boondoggle known as the police department?

      2. Like the guy who was shot for doing exactly what the cop ordered when he reached for his ID?

  16. CNN reporter makes bizarre claims about the Charlie Hebdo shooting, declares that anyone who disagrees with him is bought off by treacherous Jew-gold.

    He then went on an ad-hominem and conspiracy-laden tirade, falsely accusing “Pro-Israel” voices of trying to “convince us that cartoonists were really anti Muslim.” In another tweet, he added, “These accounts are part of a campaign to do PR for Israel.” In a third tweet, he again accused several Twitter accounts of being “part of” an Israeli “PR campaign that is anti-Muslim.”

    1. “They turned me into a newt!”

      1. I got better.

    2. Please be Don Lemon, please be Don Lemon, please be Don Lemon, please be Don Lemon, please be Don Lemon….

      Dammit, it’s just Jim Clancy.

    3. I presume the cartoonists *were* anti-Muslim. As are all sensible people.

  17. Feminists continue to make up bizarre, pointless, horribly sexist claims about evil but totally inconsequential things that men are allegedly doing.

    I mention all that because there’s a helpful new word in the man-as-prefix lexicon. Meet “manslamming,” which New York magazine’s Jessica Roy uses to describe the behavior that is, on a sidewalk, refusing to yield to a fellow pedestrian such that a collision inevitably ensues. More broadly, Roy says, it’s “the sidewalk M.O. of men who remain apparently oblivious to the personal space of those around them.” It is (usually) done by men, (usually) at the expense of women. It is (usually) done unconsciously.

    What should we call it when a 20 year old girl can’t get off her fucking cell phone while she’s walking down the street and runs into you due to her total obliviousness to the world around her?

    Chick-texting? Somehow I think feminists would find it sexist if I invented that word.

    Incidentally, remember when feminists, like, fought for the right to vote? It’s a pretty long drop from doing something that important to whining that a man spread his legs a little too far on the subway or accidentally bumped into you.

    1. Also, they have a link on that page to this article about ‘Mansplaining’ which is like 1000 words long.

      I personally have a much more concise definition of mansplaining.

      Mansplaining, verb: Accurately and reasonably explaining to a feminist why she is wrong.


        It’s a fine line, but seeing mansplaining everywhere?especially once you know it’s been around so long?is perhaps as dangerous as allowing it to go unnoticed.

        There is no hyperbole quite as hilarious as progressive hyperbole. Not seeing mansplaining, or seeing mansplaining everywhere!, is actually ‘dangerous.’

        This reminds me of when a prog at Salon claimed it was ‘terrifying’ to talk about getting rid of the department of education.

        1. Pants wetters. Seriously.

    2. So are they oblivious, or is it intentional? Make up your mind.

      My only memory of an incident like this was in East Germany in 88. It was intentional and I moved out of the way. Mostly because I knew that if I didn’t, I was going to regret the fight that would follow.

      1. I only make that move against men. Dad raised me not to bump into even rude, oblivious women. But sometimes a group of metrosexual business men will be moving in a pack down the sidewalk, with clearly no intention of making any space for me, and I will aggressively shoulder-check. Intentionally on my part. Whether they’re being oblivious or intentional, I couldn’t give a fig.

    3. What should we call it when a 20 year old girl can’t get off her fucking cell phone while she’s walking down the street and runs into you due to her total obliviousness to the world around her?


    4. I have massive shoulders. If she doesn’t want to move her little shoulders out of my way, her problem, not mine.

      1. I don’t even *know* if I bump into anyone, my muscles are so enormous I just can’t tell which pipsqueaks I knocked down.

    5. Anecdotal evidence: I’ve had more women walk into me than men, typically because they are nose deep in a Validation Box…I mean cell phone, texting, friending, unfriending, Tindering, Facebooking, Instagramming, and generally blind and deaf to the world.

      Men bump into each other all the time. Typically the situation is resolved in one of three ways: 1) A quick apology by both parties since both are men and are clearly on the way to doing man stuff like getting things done. 2) A challenging look by one or both parties, as if to say “I would kick your ass for your thoughtlessness, but I have more important things to do.” 3) Ignore the contact, go on about life.

      1. This happens walking around in Baltimore, typically to my office from the parking garage, or to get some lunch from my office and back, so much that I don’t even think about it anymore. I know some of it is people being assholes, but most of it is people who are oblivious to their surroundings, mostly cell phone or talking to other people while walking. I’ve never seen a confrontation yet.

        1. Which part of Baltimore?

          1. Downtown, harbor, harbor east…

            1. Gotcha. Get to Camden Yads much?

              1. I just drove by there a couple of hours ago. You know, I’ve lived here in the city for 2 years now, well I’m almost 10 miles out but work downtown, and the wife and I have yet to go to a single Oryuls or Ravens game. I was just thinking about that. I should take her to an Oryuls game this spring, watch the crazy peoples.

                1. Of all the stadiums, it’s one of the best to actually see a game in.

                  1. I’ve heard that. Last game I was at was in Cincy. I used to go the games there all of the time when I was a kid. Interestingly enough, I was a huge Orioles fan. Strange how life works out.

    6. Good God, this is stupid:

      The term comes from an experiment conducted by Beth Breslaw, a 25-year-old labor organizer: Inspired by a friend, who wanted to test the theory that men were less likely than women to make room for other people on a crowded sidewalk, Breslaw decided to spend a couple of months walking like a man. “Instead of automatically moving out of the way for people in her path,” Roy writes, “she would spend some time taking a more masculine approach to city living. She would stride confidently in whatever direction she chose, refusing to alter her route for anyone, male or female.”

      The results? Breslaw “spent every day getting repeatedly body-checked.” Women, generally, moved out of the way for her; men, generally, refused to move, with the consequence being that they simply plowed into her. As Breslaw told Roy: “I can remember every single man who moved out of the way, because there were so few.”

      So the experiment involved walking down the street like an asshole and forcing women to submissively move out of her dickish path.

      If anything this just proves that women need to assert themselves more. If someone is hurling herself down the street like an aimless comet, anyone who body checks them is doing a public service.

      1. A man does an early version of this experiment:


    7. “What should we call it when a 20 year old girl can’t get off her fucking cell phone while she’s walking down the street and runs into you due to her total obliviousness to the world around her?”

      I wrote about this about 5 years ago = how the millenials moving into Williamburg would just walk right into you while they were texting, and then sneer like you should have dodged them or something. It was in contrast to my previous 20 years living in NYC where everyone seemed to have high-sensitivity radar equipped that made rapid sidewalk movement possible. Now the entire city is like that. And – sexist tho it may sound? – young women are the absolute worst about “obliviously texting on the move”. I can only assume its the same in every single city in the US

      The thing that makes me go fucking ballistic (and its happened twice = full on Hulk-tastic Ragefest) is people stopping on randomly subway steps and blocking the @#$*&@#* passage while they check their gizmo for something. During fucking rush hour.

  18. I keep saying this, but I’m going to say it again. There is only one likely viable solution to this problem. Sure, there are more than one solution and more than one that would work if it was applied correctly and rigorously.

    But the more I think about it, the more I am convinced of one solution. Part of the problem is that too many people who are now attracted to a job as a cop are some sort of sociopaths who are looking for a legal way to get violent with other people.

    The solution is to replace all cops with robots. Period. The robots will be programmed to effectively assess a situation and to not kill people but to only neutralize a threat to other people. And yes, I am dead serious.

    1. +1 OCP

      1. You leave the Oregon Catholic Press out of this!

    2. You’re damn right. They won’t need unions and they can’t be killed so they won’t have to “fear for their lives”.

      1. Exactly. Cops have proven that they cannot be trusted with peoples lives. I think that ‘cop’ is like a PhD for playground bullies.

    3. Nice shootin’, son. What’s your name?

  19. The New York Times publishes the best kind of science article, the kind where a scientific study told us things that everyone already knows.

    Active older people resemble much younger people physiologically, according to a new study of the effects of exercise on aging. The findings suggest that many of our expectations about the inevitability of physical decline with advancing years may be incorrect and that how we age is, to a large degree, up to us.

    So where does the Times find their writers? Some sort of lobotomy ward? Because everyone I’ve ever met knows that if you exercise, it helps you look younger as you age.

    The New York Times apparently just discovered that exercise has positive physical effects. All the news that’s fit to print!

    1. the inevitability of physical decline with advancing years may be incorrect and that how we age is, to a large degree, up to us

      Right up to the point that your body can no longer repair the damages that aging and aging related diseases have done to all of your organs.

      I’m pretty much in the Peter Thiel and Aubrey de Grey camp on this. Aging can be slowed and even stopped when we get there technologically. But the right attitude/diet/exercise and especially the right genes are only going to get you so far and it ain’t much.

      1. Fuck, IMHO, it’d be worth it to achieve really long lifespans, say even a few hundred years, just to watch our politicians shit their pants over how they’re going to manage this ‘crisis’.

        1. You might not like their solutions.

          Soylent Green was a recipe after all.

          1. I’m sure I wouldn’t like their solutions.

            I’m equally sure that they don’t have any solutions.

    2. The New York Times science reporting continues to break new ground:

      The idea of “healthy obesity” ? that there are obese people who are nevertheless in good health, with normal cholesterol levels, blood pressure and other metabolic risk factors ? has gained traction in recent years. But a small study suggests this apparently healthy state of affairs does not last.

      “?’Healthy obesity’ is quite a misleading term,” said the lead author, Joshua A. Bell, a doctoral candidate at University College London. “It sounds safe, but we know that it’s only healthy in a relative sense. The healthy obese become unhealthy and progress into the highest risk group. This is a real challenge to the idea that the obese can be healthy in the long term.”

      New York Times discovers that being fat is bad for you.

      1. So, they’re essentially saying that “we’re all dying…”?

        Yes, as a non-obese person, my current healthy state will not last.

  20. If there is a stink, we must investigate. We must gather evidence because evidence makes us see the truth. Is this the stink of a criminal act, or is it a turd in a bag?

    I see cops who lose their way every day, and I don’t like that,
    because their ambivalence is contagious. They infect those around them. They’re like maggots. Where you find one, you find a nest.
    — Robert De Niro in Cop Land (1997).

    1. Well quoted, Sausage King!

    1. Still, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still be concerned with Islamophobia on the internet and stuff.

      My instinct is always to write snarky ‘straplines’ to headlines like that.


      Boko Haram kills 2000 Nigerians, burns a city to the ground
      Most Nigerians agree: It was a better than average Tuesday

    2. Do they oppose the US? that’s the only real question.

    3. #RebuildOurTown.

      There, I’ve shown I cared. Where’s my approbation?

  21. Sounds like a very good plan to me dude.


  22. while not clear from the video, and not mentioned in most of the press accounts which refer to “traffic stop” and not “shooting investigation stop,” the Daily Inter Lake clip I link below does quote authority’s claiming that the officer thought Ramirez had been involved in a shooting earlier that day

    What are the details of the officer believing Ramirez had been in a shooting earlier that day? Did he decide that on his own? Did dispatch yell back into the radio after calling in the plates, “ZOMG, the man you pullt over done kilt people a few moments ago!!! START SHOOTING”

    What all of us need to keep our heads clear about is, yes, I’d say probably more often than not*, the people cops kill may be total jerkwads. The question then becomes, did they deserve a death sentence because of it?

    The point being, what if cops mistakenly believe I’m a dangerous perpetrator when they’ve misidentified me? If they shoot me 68 times, do they just get to say, “Well, it’s a tragic accident, and we were mistaken in thinking he was a dangerous perp, but because we thought he was a dangerous perp, Any Reasonable Officer Would Have Done The Same Thing(tm), therefore, no charges or sanctions against the officers. Remember kids, obey every officer’s commands and hope he doesn’t think you’re dangerous!”

    *not that we lack any examples of people who were the salt of the earth who end up getting killed by cops.

  23. So in 2024 Connor McLeod will revive him after him killing two Zeistian assassins?

  24. Funny. The video preview on this page shows a pic of Barbara Boxer with the caption “A message from Barbara Boxer,” while Reason’s lead to the video says “Disturbing, ‘natch.”

    What’s with video previews appearing in the wrong articles?


    1. COD: MW2?

  26. OT: Some pantswetting on “Dr. Drew Oncall” over a lawyer telling people what to do to avoid police harassment at DUI checkpoints.

    “I appreciate police being out there trying to protect us from drunk drivers.”
    /some stupid pundit.

  27. Billings is one of a very small number of concentrations of hardcore progs that are able to ruin the entire otherwise very liberty loving state due to the simple fact that Montana has an extremely low overall population density.

    1. Uh. No. That is not accurate.

      If there is a city in Montana with “a very small concentration of hardcore progs,” then it’s Missoula. Billings is a working, industrial city with the bulk of its population being native to Billings or having moved to Billings from a smaller town (in Montana). Have you ever been to a small town here? They’re conservative bastions.

      Do you even Montana?

  28. Let’s get this straight – every time a cop shoots an unarmed suspect you really need to assume it was unjustified unless it can be proved otherwise.

  29. Part of the problem, IMHO, is the false narrative that gets perpetuated , not only by the police themselves, but by every form of media, and the low-information public as a whole.
    “Being a cop is the most dangerous job. ”
    But, it isn’t. It’s not even in the top ten. In fact, in contacts between police and private citizens, it is, statistically, 3000%+ more dangerous for the private citizen than it is for the cop. Last year, for instance, 46 cops were killed by private citizens. 1450 private citizens were killed by cops.
    That false narrative contributes to the scared-shitlessness of cops who keep getting told how dangerous their job is, and to the general pubic serving on grand juries, gives cops the benefit of the doubt when they kill unarmed citizens for reaching for their wallet, cell phone, or having their hair braided in a dark hallway.

  30. the officer thought Ramirez had been involved in a shooting earlier that day.

    It’s the new “I feared for my life!”

    There’s a reason they’re called “cop outs”.

  31. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail ???????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.