Civil Liberties

Why Did Alcoholic Beverage Control Cops Beat This Black UVA Student Bloody?

And why does a state liquor agency hire cops to beat up kids?


Martese Johnson
UVA Problems / Twitter

A black University of Virginia student was grabbed by cops outside a bar in Charlottesville late Wednesday night and thrown to the ground. He hit his head, suffering an injury that required 10 stitches, according to The Huffington Post. Cell phone pictures and videos of the incident show the student, Martese Johnson, pinned to the ground and covered in blood.

The cops, as it turns out, didn't work for the university; they are officers with the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, a state liquor agency. Apparently, the officers approached Johnson after he was turned away from a bar. They decided to detain him and eventually charged him with public drunkenness and obstructing justice.

But it's not clear why they handled him so violently, given that all eyewitness accounts seem to agree that Johnson didn't resist or fight back. He yelled at them and accused them of being "fucking racists," but that was after they had already smashed his head against the pavement.

UVA President Teresa Sullivan has asked the state to investigate the matter, and Gov. Terry McAuliffe agreed to do so. In the meantime, the campus is outraged. Two black UVA administrators criticized the officers for appalling conduct:

"His head was slammed into the hard pavement with excessive force," Martin and Apprey wrote in a statement. "The student required medical evaluation and treatment at the UVa Hospital Emergency Department. This was wrong and should not have occurred. In the many years of our medical, professional and leadership roles at the University, we view the nature of this assault as highly unusual and appalling based on the information we have received."

While it's possible Johnson did something to provoke the attack, witness statements make that unlikely. Right now, it certainly seems like this is yet another case of the police treating a minority youth with unnecessary cruelty.

And why does a regulatory agency employ a police force, anyway? Is Prohibition a worthy enough goal that the abuse of an occasional student is an acceptable price to pay? Keep in mind that this is not the first time the ABC caused a controversy at UVA. In 2013, six undercover ABC agents descended upon a student who had just purchased a case of bottled waters from a campus grocery store. The plain-clothed agents (wrongly) suspected the underage student of purchasing alcohol and drew a gun on her. She thought she was being robbed and fled in her car as they tried to break her windows. She then called the police—unaware that the police were the ones harassing her. She spent a night in jail, eventually sued, and won a $200,000 settlement.

According to Jezebel, one of the reasons for ABC agents to patrol the campus is "for the protection of women":

Graduate student Maya Hislop told me, "Black students on grounds are highly familiar with this kind of abuse (denied access to places, checking IDs of black students and not checking IDs of white students), but I do not know that it has ever been this violent."

She added, "We knew that increased police presence for the protection of women would have a negative impact on black students. It sucks that we had to be proven right this way."

It does suck. But as was the case with the terrible choking death of Eric Garner, liberals should remember that a general call for more things to be illegal—for the government to do more about a problemis by necessity a call for increasingly vigorous policing. A demand for bigger government is essentially a request for more clashes between cops and citizens (socially-marginalized citizens, in particular).

Or, in meme form:


NEXT: Make Voting Mandatory Says Obama, France May Ban Skinny Models, Darknet Marketplace Disappears: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.



      2. I make up to USD90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around USD40h to USD86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link
        Try it, you won t regret it!.

    2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,

  1. I wholeheartedly support the dismantling of the ABC task force in its entirety. Of course, that idea will never see the light of day.

    1. SECONDED!!!

      1. FIFTHED!

        1. I saw what you did there

      2. Always can count on Monty Crisco.

  2. Now that's a good meme. Sorely tempted to post it to Facebook and watch heads explode.

    1. Guess who won't get it or will instantly react with some retarded derp or both.

    2. It's been around awhile. I've no doubt your friends have snarky responses involving Somalia lined up.

    3. Is it? I don't understand the assumption that that particular young protester is protesting for more government.

      Do liberals want "more government?" I don't think anyone wants more government, just like no sincere conservative would own to an accusation like "wanting to screw the working class." Even if the reality of the policies they think would be best might end up that way, because bureacracy sucks.

      I always felt like 'liberals' want a government with vastly different focuses, but not a "bigger" one. That's not really a meaningful accusation.

      1. yes, that's exactly what they want: more government. It's an unavoidable fact of their policy recommendations, and often a directly stated preference.

  3. We knew that increased police presence for the protection of women would have a negative impact on black students. It sucks that we had to be proven right this way.

    Take time to let that sink in. She knew it would have a negative impact. But did she ever stop to ask if there is a better way to protect women?

    1. That is just her letting the experiment run its course.

      This whole incident is er... problematic? But, I am not sure this guy was "beaten" by the police as the article says. At this point there is not enough information I have found to say one way or another what happened.

      The bigger take away is very important to share with our less libertarian friends: police gonna police.

    2. It doesn't sound like she's in favor of the increased police presence. She's saying "I told you so."

      1. If anything, she comes off as something of a fellow traveler with respect to overpolicing.

    3. The best way to protect women is to arm women

      1. BINGO!!!!

        And I love that fucking meme, btw...

      2. Really? Do you want to see every sorority pillow fight turn bloody?

        1. That only happens once a month.

            1. Swiss Servator's gaze is wounded! Medic! Medic!

              /steps up to the line and narrows gaze at the enemy

        2. Wow, what a dickish and incredibly condescending attitude you have towards women - alomost as if you equate them to antebellum slave unable to fend and care for themselves.


          So, you are statist douche and cannot stand the slightest thought of people taking care of themselves.

          sO, fuck off, slaver...

          1. Um....sarcasm meter check, perhaps?

            1. I think the nihilist douche REALLY IS against arming women...Sorry, Swiss, I could be wrong but check his downthread comments...

            2. This is Tulpa. His contempt for gun ownership has been made abundantly clear in the past. He has argued for mandatory searches of gun owners' homes, against people being allowed carry weapons in public, and in general that the government can regulate gun ownership into oblivion. That he views women as subhuman is likely just an extension of his view that everyone not in government or among the set of Top Men like himself is subhuman.

        3. Of course you hate women, Tulpa. They're all stupid bitches for rejecting you your entire life. That must be why. It's not like no woman will have you because you're a failure of a man with an entitled attitude or anything.

        4. Oh, fuck off, statist-pig.

    4. Why the assumption that she was among those who asked for it in the first place?

    5. But did she ever stop to ask if there is a better way to protect women?

      If only there was some way to empower women to protect themselves...

      1. Teach men not to rape!

  4. But...but...that's not what we intended! We just wanted those awful teabagger conservatives and crazy libertarians to be beaten into submission to our kind and enlightened ways!

    1. Dude, grad students didn't enact policies that led to an increasing and brutal police presence. The girl quoted seems pretty with-it and there's no point mocking her.

      Administrators did, and administrators make policy exclusively to avoid litigation, to enable jacking up prices, or to let them claim Safety in promo pamphlets. Who knows, it's not implausible that police want the police to be on college campuses, and insinuate/terrify administrators into a flurry about how Dangerous the World Is These Days. (-Don't you watch TV??-)

      After all, once you have Safety, you can't have Less Safety, because then you're Against Safety, you know,

  5. While it's possible Johnson did something to provoke the attack, witness statements make that unlikely.

    Unless there's video, the only witness statements that count are the ones made by official badge-wearers.

    1. Wait, but I learned in like 1st grade that nothing counts as legitimately provoking violence except an actual physical attack. Ah, never mind...

  6. According to Jezebel-

    Stop right there.

  7. And yet,if he joined the U.S. army he'sdbe issued a automatic weapon,or maybe be flying a armed drone. But drink a beer, TOO YOUNG!!

    1. About 8 years ago my (then 17 years old) son and I had a layover at JFK when returning to Boston from Munich. We were at a food court when a young US Army corporal in full uniform, with a silver star in his medal rack and using a cane to walk was just ahead of us in the cashier line. This war hero was returning stateside for rehab after having had surgery facility in Europe. He was forced to exchange his bottle of beer for a soda pop because he was only 20. I bought the beer and placed it on his table, saying something like "any wounded soldier gets a beer in my saloon". At that point a woman approached me and my son and 'ripped me a new body orifice', screaming at me, telling me that I was teaching my son to flout the law, etc. It's time to admit that the experiment in increasing the drinking age to 21 has failed, resulting only in more unsupervised and non contextual binge drinking, date rape, etc.

      1. It's the dumbest shit. When I was a Marine, it was ridiculous how many good young Marines' careers were ruined over nothing more than getting busted for underaged drinking. When I was stationed in Okinawa, the local drinking age was 19, so of course many underaged Marines would hit the bars out in town. Sometimes, they'd get themselves in trouble, so we actually had this sort of seminar at Futenma about how we could reduce these incidents. The glaringly obvious answer was to allow everyone, 21 or otherwise, to drink on base at the E-club or in their barracks, so the incidents were confined to the base and wouldn't cause problems with the locals. Oh, no, we can't do that - that's against the law!!

        Fucking idiocy.

        1. Camp Futenma for the WIN!

          I was there in 87/88 in MATCS-18. Loved that place.

          1. 03-04, MACS-4 Det A. It was fun until the liberty card system came in during my final months there and all nonrates received red cards, which meant we had to be back on base by midnight.

            1. Cinderella liberty would totally suck there. I have many good memories of dragging my ass up that hill and making it in just before reveille.

              The big thing for us was to get a club card for the Air Force E-club in Kadena. Too many infantry assholes from Camp Hansen were coming down each weekend and tearing up the club in their attempt to get some round eyes. So they restricted it to only AF pukes and anyone with a club card. Since we would cross train with them on some of our air traffic gear we could get cards.

            2. Liberty... card. Wow, that is a DOOZY of a euphemistic oxymoron. I think my mind actually exploded a little.

        2. Also when I was there you could buy booze dirt cheap ($1.85 for a quart of Bacardi). In town, american booze was astoundingly expensive.

          This led us to have parties on the beach with young local ladies where we would provide booze and they would provide the food.

          We also had a Friday formation every week where the CO would bitch at us for going out in town and getting in trouble.

          1. The Pink Store FTW! A buddy of mine was Polish, and he used to buy some kind of Polish grain alcohol they sold. He was ecstatic when he found it, apparently it was hard to come by in the states. Shit would make your whole mouth numb. Was My House and CoCo's around back then? I miss beef yakisoba and the fried pork chop curry.

            1. Those names don't ring a bell, but then I don't remember lots of stuff from a week ago.

              Yeah, I miss the yakisoba stand that was down the hill from the main gates.

              1. That was My House. At least, that was the name it had when I was there. The yakisoba and teryaki rice was awesome, especially at 3 AM.

      2. screaming at me

        I would have had a very hard time restraining myself from causing a scene right back. Wow.

        1. Just smile, and when she winds down, say "I'll bet you wouldn't have guts to get in Rosa Parks face like that."

          1. That's way to clever for most people in such a situation.

            Me, for instance, I'd have simply yelled, "HEY! FUCK YOU, BUDDEH!" Not nearly as good.

          2. It is said that when we dropped the nukes on Japan in WWII, the people at ground zero were literally vaporized. No remains. Nothing. Just silhouettes permanently left behind in the pavement - that's how hot the blast was.

            Even still...

            That doesn't compare to the BURN of that come-back, tarran. I'm keeping that one for future use.

            1. Wow, I think your first paragraph would be a wonderful thing to recite, calmly, dead-eyed, with no further context, to anyone who gets in your face about anything, ever.

          3. The Fugitive Slave Act was also the law once. Would you support that, too?

      3. In your place I would have told her "Yes, I am. I am teaching him to do what is right, not what is legal. Got a problem with that, bitch?"

        1. Never ask them questions! It gives them an excuse to rant all over again.

          Simply smile.

          Asking for her phone number in case you need more parenting advice would also have worked.

          1. I seldom get into trouble by asking them questions. But I'm large, bearded, and have eyebrows that come to tufted peaks, so I look intimidating as hell.

            Sometimes they squeak like startled mice.

      4. At that point a woman approached me and my son and 'ripped me a new body orifice', screaming at me, telling me that I was teaching my son to flout the law, etc.

        "Only the idiotic laws. Now how about you go mind your own fucking business you stupid harpy."

      5. Cardio, my first reaction probably would have been to buy another beer, put it in front of the Marine, and just stare at her*.

        If she wound up again, I'd buy another beer, etc.

        *I have found that if you think about doing serious bodily to somebody while staring at them deadpan, they tend to get seriously unnerved. Must be some kind of non-verbal/subconscious thing, but it works like frickin' telepathy. Very handy in meetings.

  8. As many on here have said,if you pass a law you must be willing to use force and or kill to enforce it.

    1. Yep. Any piece of legislation, no matter how trivial, carries with it a potential death sentence to anyone who fail to show sufficient respect to the enforcers.

      1. What about legislation that repeals previous laws?

        1. Good question. I don't have experience with that phenomenon.

          1. "Prohibition is repealed! DRINKING IS NOW MANDATORY."

    2. In which case many on here were wrong. Big surprise. Plenty of laws are not enforced to that extent (e.g. giving up on speeding chases when entering heavy traffic areas).

      1. They only give up to protect bystanders in those cases, not out of recognition that their actions aren't justified. But you knew that.

        1. And there's some problem with that?

          So your point is that law enforcement should just give up when someone resists arrest? Then everyone would just resist and the law would be meaningless.

          1. My point is that the number of actions which should result in arrest should be incredibly small. But you knew that too.

          2. The law isn't ultimately backed up with violence, but if it wasn't then no one would respect it. So which is it, Tulpa?

      2. (e.g. giving up on speeding chases when entering heavy traffic areas)

        They only do that on tv.

  9. He wasn't "beaten bloody", he was thrown to the ground exactly one time and was unable to break the fall (possibly due to being drunk). He wasn't even beaten at all. You guys are becoming a bad joke.

    1. OOoooh, look, the whiny bitch brigade has sent a heroic pathfinder!

      1. Better a whine than a lie.

        1. And, you're very concerned about lies, aren't you.

    2. So, if somebody throws you to the ground and your head bounces off the sidewalk, you haven't been beaten? Jesus crackers, I thought I was pedantic but this is ridiculous.

      1. Yeah, that post just screams Tulpa. The pedantry level is over 9000.

        1. So when someone lies, the person who points out the lie is guilty of pedantry. Cool.

          1. "Lie" being a hair-splitting exercise in defining excessive force.

            Tulpa confirmed for supporting cracking heads on pavement if the crime warrants it. Pro-tip: every crime does.

            1. Hair-splitting? This is hilarious.

              When news reports, police press releases, etc. sugar coat stories of excessive force by using the passive voice and euphemisms for violent acts, you guys are rightly up in arms. But suddenly when someone on your side outright misrepresents the acts, it's hair-splitting and pedantry to point that fact out. TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE have nothing on TEAM ANTI-COP.

              1. Look, the kid was black. Probably drunk, too. And eyewitness statements be damned, he probably was a little verbally abusive. We get it, Tulpa. He had it coming. What's a few stitches in light of his newfound respect for authority? Most people pay a much higher cost to learn that lesson.

            2. And every perceived crime.

              Or looking at a cop the wrong way.

              Or pretty much anything. I mean, if the cop says you've done something wrong, then you've done something wrong!

              1. Luckily, there wasn't an "officer-involved shooting" or a gun discharging itself.

      2. So, if somebody throws you to the ground and your head bounces off the sidewalk, you haven't been beaten?

        No. "Beat" has a very specific meaning, involving repetitive striking of the body for the purpose of inflicting injury. In this case, the injury was not intended (though one could argue that the cops acted carelessly considering the guy was drunk). Mr Suave is as usual misstating the actual facts to make the police look worse. It's not pedantic to point that out.

        1. In this case, the injury was not intended

          Oopsy. I like didn't mean to cause you injury when I picked you up and like dropped you head first onto the concrete and stuff. Sawwy.

          1. I like didn't mean to cause you injury when I picked you up and like dropped you head first onto the concrete and stuff.

            That would be intentional injury, since there's no way to catch the fall in that case. That would also be a sequence of events that apparently did not happen in this case.

            1. Why did you guys arrest him though?

            2. Why did you guys arrest him though?

            3. At least, it's very much unclear whether the injury was intentional.

            4. That would also be a sequence of events that apparently did not happen in this case.

              According to the cops, yes. But cops are liars.

              Witnesses say the cops flipped him, causing him to land on his head. That's intentional injury, which of course is what cops do. Depraved indifference is a job requirement.

              1. Can you quote me the source where the witness says the cops flipped him?

                1. Can you quote me the source where the witness says the cops flipped him?

                  I thought I read that in the DM piece. That's what I get for reading too quickly. Either way, they're supposed to take someone down in a controlled manner. Not slamming the person down onto their head with the weight of themselves and the officers adding to the force of the injury.

                  Cops don't injure people on accident. They do it for fun.

                  1. Well, these are ABC cops, so maybe they aren't as well trained as yout typical city cops. They might not have the controlled takedown entirely mastered.

                    IMO, it's entirely possible that this was an accident in which the guys drunkenness may have been a factor, not the cops intentionally bashing his head on the ground.

                    1. IMO, it's entirely possible that this was an accident in which the guys drunkenness may have been a factor, not the cops intentionally bashing his head on the ground.

                      It's possible, but unlikely. I've watched cops deal with intoxicated people plenty of times. They toss them around like rag dolls when they're not clubbing them. Cops absolutely love to deal with drunks because it's an opportunity to really fuck the person up while claiming that it wasn't their fault. The only thing they like more than tossing drunks into sidewalks and walls is choking people.

              2. Witnesses say the cops flipped him, causing him to land on his head.

                The injury in the picture is to his face and forehead. A flip would cause injury to the top of his head.

                1. Hah! You'd have been better off not making shit up, you liar.

                  When you upend someone they don't invert completely then slam into the ground. Because life is not a cartoon.

                  Rather their center of gravity is falling the whole time so that by the time their head reaches ground level, the angle between their head and their center of mass is between 30 and 45 degrees or so, meaning they hit the ground with their nose or forehead.

                  1. ND has been watching too much TV wrestling (between bouts of copsucking).

            5. Laying hands on him in the first place makes any injury he sustains the fault of the cops involved. These are alleged to be the sober, dispassionate, fair-minded professionals, right? Doesn't seem like it when their encounters end up in stitches.

              1. Laying hands on him in the first place makes any injury he sustains the fault of the cops involved.

                Where do you get that idea from?

                1. YOu have implied you were one of the cops who arrested the guy, so why don't you tell us your side of the story?

                2. Common sense? Clairty is much easier when you don't have cop dick in your mouth all the time, Tulpa.

                  1. So if a cop grabs a purse snatcher's arm, the purse snatcher runs out into traffic and gets hit by a car, it's the cop's fault?

                    1. Zero tolerance, no restraint, no discretion, and now every possibly drunk MIP is guilty of strong-armed theft.

                      We get it, Tulpa. Everyone is guilty of something.

                    2. So if a cop grabs a purse snatcher's arm, the purse snatcher runs out into traffic and gets hit by a car, it's the cop's fault?

                      Totally the same thing.

                      You're a parody of yourself at this point.

                    3. So if a cop grabs a purse snatcher's arm, the purse snatcher runs out into traffic and gets hit by a car, it's the cop's fault?

                      No, it's obviously the fault of the guy twirling around firing a machine gun in the park.

                3. These are alleged to be the sober, dispassionate, fair-minded professionals, right?

                  Wait, you're right. Where did I get that idea.

          2. It was gravity wut done it!

        2. In this case, the injury was not intended

          Holy shit! You're one of the cops?

          So why did you arrest him?

        3. You can try to finesse this in any "it depends on what the meaning of is, is" way you want. The bottom line is that violent force was used with no justification. Even if the injuries were due to negligence rather than malice, those inflicting the injuries are still responsible.

          At least, that's how it works for us mere citizens.

          If I'm supposed to regard them as trained professionals, it is incumbent upon them to act like it.

          1. At least, that's how it works for us mere citizens.

            Precisely. Mere citizens don't have fancy costumes that make them immune to the minimal ethical obligations that non-costumed people owe each other.

        4. Its like Bo and Tulpa had a baby or something.

    3. Fuck off, Tulpa, you moron.

    4. Way to focus on a side issue. The point is that the ABC has "police" who conceive it part of their job to assault citizens. Not "call the real police and have him arrested for public intoxication"; come on like Eliot Friggin' Ness and re-enact an episode of THE UNTOUCHABLES.

      That a citizen old enough o vote is not considered old enough to decide whether to drink is, in itself, absurd. Add to that the tendency of every agency of every level of government to field a group of armed goons and we enter the realm of farce.

      And in the real world, sadly, the hijinks of farce all too often result in bloodshed.Farce belongs on the stage, not in government policy.

      1. On a couple of side issues. They had to pander to the race-angle on this, as if the cops would've been fine with him if he had been white.

        1. But the problem is, they might well have left him alone if he were White. The Progressive State (as I have mentioned elsewhere) is BUILT on racism, despite all its pious assertions to the contrary. And you have to admit that the ABC is about as "Progressive State" as you can get without actually having Thought Police.

          There IS racism built into American society. It just isn't built in by the Conservative Right, as Race Pimps like Al "Lawn Jockey for the Left" Sharpton would have us believe. It is built in by racial preferences that assume that Blacks can't possibly succeed without a lily-white hand up. It is a foundation stone of Progressivism, which assumes that most people are unfit to decide things for themselves, and that goes double for all Brown People. The Democrats desperately hope we will forget that they are the Party of the Confederacy and the KKK. We need to remember.

  10. Next up in VA. Laws against photographing cops.

  11. In my mind, the alcoholic beverage commission should be the guys assigned the job of organizing the drinks for the next holiday party.

  12. I'm not sure. It's possible witnesses might have misinterpreted what happened.

    If the guy was so drunk that bars weren't letting him in, maybe he was so drunk that he fell down and hit his own head. Or there was some altercation in which he responded in such a wild and flailing manner than he got flung to the ground from his own momentum.
    In other words it could have been an accident and not the cops purposly bashing his head on the ground.

    1. "given that all eyewitness accounts seem to agree that Johnson didn't resist or fight back"

      1. Eyewitness accounts aren't clear if they begin from before the part where he gets flung to the ground or after. The cell phone video starts after.

      2. Given that day-after eyewitness accounts have proven so reliable in the past.

        1. As long as you include the accounts by cops, I can't argue.

      3. A statement unsupported by any of the links Mr. Suave provides.

        1. Why dont' you tell us your side of the story, mr officer?

      4. Also, it's noteworthy that they use the word "flung" or "threw" - like it was a whole body motion, and not the cop grabbing his head and bashing it into the ground. It sounds very uncontrolled. So maybe what people thought they saw wasn't what was actually happening.

        It could have been the cops trying to grab him combined with some drunken tripping and flailing, not an intentional flinging motion.

      5. just like all the so called eye witnesses in Ferguson who flat out lied about the hands up bull shit.

    2. Some of the comments I've seen elsewhere state that Johnson posted on his social media that he lost his ID; so it's entirely possible that he was turned away because he had a temporary ID. Which brings up a complaint I have about the 4th estate on this story -- why do they suck so bad? There's a few simple questions that would shed so much light on this story, that just don't seem to get asked.

      Is Johnson of legal drinking age? Most third year college students are 21; so it's entirely possible that his 'fake ID' is really a 'temporary ID'. Was the bar carding everybody? (Most do, but....) Was this the first bar where he was refused on the evening in question? Was he actually drunk? Did the police/hospital administer a field sobriety test or BAC screening?

      1. Yes these are all facts it would be helpful to ascertain before drawing any conclusions.

      2. Some of the comments I've seen elsewhere

        Who? Where?


          Per his roommate, Johnson presented his *real* ID; which indicated he is 20 years old (see followups).

          As far as I can tell, there's no law prohibiting an underage person from entering a drinking establishment; just drinking establishments serving underage persons and underage persons obtaining alcoholic beverages. (I don't know if an establishment may post "21 And Over Only"; but if it wasn't posted, or it was a restaurant/bar, why would they turn Johnson away?)

          Also, I found this little nugget in the Commonwealth of Virginia's collected laws:

          ? 18.2-388. Profane swearing and intoxication in public; penalty; transportation of public inebriates to detoxification center.

          If any person profanely curses or swears or is intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature, he shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor.

          I love the "or" clause there. You get the same charge for being intoxicated in public as you do if you drop an f-bomb.

          1. That's enough for Tulpa. Punk had it coming. Nothing else to see here.

      3. from what I've read, Johnson is underage (20).

        1. From what I read, the US has an excessively high drinking age, the highest in the world in fact. "They hate us for our freedomzzzzz"

      4. Field sobriety test means NOTHING after you have sustained head trauma.

        1. Now lacerations are head trauma? This is getting more hilarious as you guys drift further from the facts.

          1. Keep spinning, officer! Keep spinning! That way nobody lays a hand on you!

            We're still waiting for your side of the story BTW.

          2. Now lacerations are head trauma?

            They are one of the symptoms or results of head trauma, yes.

            Having your skull bounce off the pavement is definitely head trauma. Ask any White Hispanic.

            1. Having your skull bounce off the pavement is definitely head trauma. Ask any White Hispanic.

              Or just one in particular.

  13. Thanks, Rob. The end of the article is excellent.

    1. "liberals should remember that a general call for more things to be illegal?for the government to do more about a problem?is by necessity a call for increasingly vigorous policing."

      Every law is backed up by the threat of violence.

      That threat is only justified when it's used to protect our rights. No one's rights are protected by hassling college kids for drinking.

      I'd say the idea that college kids should live under the threat of violence for drinking is medieval, but I'm pretty sure college kids in the Middle Ages were free to drink.

      Oh, and Robbie, it isn't honest "liberals" that are the problem. It's progressives. Progressives have made a fetish out of the government forcing people to forgo their rights for their "greater good". Progressives don't need to remember anything. They need to be exposed. Progressives want to treat adults who want Big Gulps the way this kid was treated for trying to get into a bar. It's for the "greater good" since, you know, being fat is bad for you. That's "science"! Don't you believe in "science"?

  14. This looks pretty bad, but I would rather wait to see what other facts come out before saying much about this specific incident. As a Virginian, though, fuck ABC and their monopoly and their hired thugs and their ridiculously high prices.

    Been a shitty year at dear old UVA, what with Hannah Graham, the Rolling Stone debacle, discovering that giggling idiot Marie Harf is an alum, blowing the Vippy Sue game yet again (and Mike London coming back for yet another year of terrible football) and now this.

    1. God bless Tony Bennett and Justin Anderson's pinky.

      1. Tony doesn't need any help. If there's a god, he needs to get on Simba's pinky ASAP. If he's right, we're as good as anyone.

        1. Absolutely. Simba's paw is the difference b/w maybe playing for a national title and not getting out of the region. Our QB situation is pretty strong evidence against the existence of a merciful and benevolent god.

          1. Hah! Ain't that the truth. Saddest thing - the Johns/Lambert tandem was actually an improvement on Watford. That's how bad we've been at QB.

            1. Its been garbage since Schaub. I really wanted Watford to be great in order to re-open that recruit pipeline to Hampton High, but he was very bad.

  15. "She added, "We knew that increased police presence for the protection of women would have a negative impact on black students. It sucks that we had to be proven right this way."

    Why didn't they hire private security?

    Tell them, "Your job is to keep an eye out for drunk girls getting assaulted. Your job is not to arrest students."

    Are they not allowed to hire private security?

    Are they required to hire government employees for some reason?

    1. Two things:
      1) Private security increases your insurance premiums; cops don't.

      2) You have to pay private security; cops can get paid for by taxpayers (or by you, it's a mess depending on what the cops' budget is looking like).

      1. 1) Private security increases your insurance premiums; cops don't.

        What now? Not at all. Private security lowers risk substantially. Every single one of my commercial clients gets discounted premiums for having taken security measures. And every single one of the personal insurance carriers I represent will discount people living in gated communities and/or with a guard at the post. I don't know what insurance market that would penalize for additional security measures, but it ain't this one.

        1. Interesting.... I had assumed that hiring security meant that you had an increased likelihood of a claim against them which would offset the losses they prevent.

          1. Interesting.... I had assumed that hiring security meant that you had an increased likelihood of a claim against them which would offset the losses they prevent.

            Presumably the security guard is contracted and as such would carry his own professional liability insurance. Some insurance companies actually do want to see certificates of liability for all the contractor's that work for your business, including security guards.

            But the appeal of security guards from a insurance company point of view is that the property is virtually always being watched. Property claims far outweigh the likelihood and payout of an 'excessive force' claim from a security guard. Moreover, excessive force claims are hard to pursue against property owners and their agents who are using force in defense of their property (and on their property).

            1. But surely a college campus is a different animal.

              There are people always around - students partying/working late etc.

              Wouldnt' the most likely interaction resulting in claims and lawsuits be one of security guard vs a student?

              1. But surely a college campus is a different animal.

                It certainly is, but that's because of a distortion of law whereby college campuses receive de facto municipality status and thus get to have their own police force that have the same qualified immunity as regular police officers.

                Wouldnt' the most likely interaction resulting in claims and lawsuits be one of security guard vs a student?

                I'd say campus police are far far more insulated from liability claims since under law they're effectively treated as government police and get the same preference from the legal system.

                1. I see, so hiring cops drops your insurance premiums *more* than hiring private security.

                  So I was technically incorrect, which is the best kind of incorrect.

                    1. If only I could grant my security contractors qualified immunity too. Then I could have trespassers executed and make it all go away by saying my guard "felt threatened".

        2. Enough of a discount to offset paying for security? Honest question. Though I can imagine there are benefits to having your grounds patrolled by at-will employees (or contractors) rather than cops.

          1. I still suspect this has to do with local ordinances and maybe state law.

            I bet you can't use just anybody for construction work, either. In a lot of places, you have to hire union labor. They're required to use union labor for their construction projects.

            For all we know, they're required to hire cops for security work.

  16. I never did quite understand the mental gymnastics required of a liberal mindset. It's very rudimentary stuff that totally eludes them.

    "I'm liberal, so I support freedom and I hate tyranny. That means I love huge amounts of unlegislated regulatory authority, I want more taxation, and I don't think people should be allowed to engage in this long list of non-violent victimless activity I've (arbitrarily) drawn up. "

    1. They are lying when they say they support 'freedom', at least when you use the definition that your or I believe. They believe freedom means "freedom from having to be responsible for yourself, or the freedom from having to work in a degrading capitalist job".

      1. When they talk about freedom, they mean "positive liberty" which isn't really a species of liberty at all. "Positive liberty" would be something like having a "right to internet access" like the Finnish claim to have. However, if you have a right to the products and labor of others, you are therefore claiming to have a right to the products and labor of others, outside of the progressive/liberal mindset this is called "slavery", but to them slavery really is freedom.

        1. damn edit button where art thou

      2. Nonsense. They don't believe a single word of that. They just think they can use "freedom" as a buzzword to cloak their lust for power.

        1. You have to separate the beliefs of the pols from their supporters. Their supporters are members of the free shit brigade who don't want to work or be responsible for themselves, while their preferred leaders are the ones who lie and promise them those things as a path to power.

  17. Move along people. Nothing to see here. This was a righteous beat-down.

    The perp called the occifers 'f***ing racists'. They had to beat him down to prove that they were not racist.

  18. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. This is after they almost gunned down a girl a year and a half ago when plain clothes VA ABC officers approached a girl in a dark parking lot? Because she had bought a 12 pack of water from Harris Teeter?

    The VA ABC needs to go. I'm tired of having to buy liquor from some dirt bag overpaid state employee.

    1. You'd think ABC learned something from the great Harris Teeter raid, but that'd be expecting too much.

      1. I think they agreed to stop being in plain clothes, so now at least you'll know who is gunning you down / throwing you to the sidewalk.

      2. To lear something from it they would have to have a sense of shame. That is clearly precluded by their being willing to hire on as the ABC's Keystone Cops in the first place.

    2. They're unionized and organized which is why McDonnell failed in his attempt to privatize the ABC stores.

      1. I did the calculation one time, by the way, the VA ABC represents 0.5% of state revenue. Chump change. It needs to go.

        We need signs with this guys bloody face and just "END THE VA ABC" underneath. Maybe that will get some progtards on our side.

        1. You just need a hugely successful members-only discount warehouse to domicile in your state and spend massive amounts of money to get privatization passed. That's how we got it done in WA...

    3. You're not allowed to question their methods, even if the outcomes are sometimes horrendous abuses of power.

      I love this about Tulpa. As long as the kill is clean, it doesn't matter that it's perpetrated in the name of an execrable policy. He's the king of the technocratic argument: the law is the law, procedures were followed, zero tolerance, no discretion or restraint permitted.

      1. He's the king of the technocratic argument

        And the perfect illustration of why technocracy is ultimately evil.

      2. Reminds me of the progressives on Reddit who I got to admit they believed escaped slaves should have been arrested.

        1. Holy shit that is insane. People are fucking nuts. They'll cling to any retarded ideology because admitting you are wrong about something hurts them in the feels.

        2. It really susses out the differences between deontologists and supporters of the rule of law. The latter would abhor what took place in late-eighteenth century France as a perversion of justice, while the former, if honest, must relish what came out of the Tribunal as the proper process of law.

          1. To support the rule of law blindly one must simultaneously accept the contradictory notions that people are not fit to make decisions for themselves but yet they are fit to make decisions for others.

            The principle of the rule of law is a double-edged sword. Yes, it means that the law must be respected. However, it also means that the law must be respectable. Passing an unjust law undermines the rule of law no less than flagrant disregard for it.

            1. Very well put. Russ Roberts propounds a notion spelled out in Adam Smith's Moral Sentiments that man wants "not merely to be loved, but the be lovely." Cesarian rulers no longer care to be lovely, just loved. Their bureaucratic apparatchiks care only to be obeyed.

          2. The term "Rule of Law" has been perverted to mean a blind belief that The Law Is Always Right. It originally meant a system under which the Law applied to the government as much as it did to the peasantry. Under the Rule Of Law policemen who arrested people on trumped up charges amounting to "Contempt of Cop" would see the inside of a jail cell, and there ABC myrmidons would be up on charges for assault, as their =behavior (and existence) is probably nowhere provided for in actual law (as opposed to unreviewed regulation).

            1. "Laws are only words written on paper, words that change on society's whim and are interpreted differently daily by politicians, lawyers, judges, and policemen. Anyone who believes that all laws should always be obeyed would have made a fine
              slave catcher. Anyone who believes that all laws are applied equally, despite race, religion, or economic status, is a fool."
              -- John J. Miller, "And Hope to Die" (in "Jokertown Shuffle:
              Wild Cards IX")

  19. Surely we all know the answer by now: because FYTW.


    VA ABC is a progressive public safety state operated retail sales business. ABC's Retail Operations is our largest division consisting of 350 retail ABC stores throughout Virginia. We consider our dynamic and committed retail staff as one of the most important ambassadors in ABC's mission of Control-Service-Revenue. We offer an engaging blend of governmental and private-sector business environments.

    We're here to help! (and control... and tax....)

    1. Not just government run stores, but an engaging blend of them.

      If I were dictator someone would have been executed and had three generations of their families send to slave in the salt mines of Michigan for writing such drivel.

    2. I just saw some cunt on the Huff Post article say that Progressives believe in individual rights. You know except when individual rights get in the way of the states fist.

      1. FS above has the right of it: the progressive conception of rights is a total perversion of liberty as originating from government rather than preempting government. So there's nothing at odds with progressive theology when they champion the rights of the individual by the grace of the State. The State giveth, and the State taketh away.

        1. Calling it "theology" is too generous. "Mythology" might be a better term.

          1. Mythology is another generation's theology no longer modernly believed. Progressivism is still very much a living religion.

            1. To be fair, I don't think it's at all unfair to classify Christian fables and beliefs as 'mythology' either. The term 'theology' exists to lend legitimacy to supernatural claims. Though I'm sure many neo-pagans don't necessarily view stories of Woden as mythology either.

              1. But it also puts lie to the idea lefties love so much, that their conception of an omnipresent, omnipotent, panoptic government is merely the rational response to the superstitious vagaries of the primitives over whom they preside, when in fact it's just another form of theocracy dressed up in the trappings of scientism.

                1. I agree. Which is why I think mythology is so much more descriptive. It's not just a belief in magic, but conveys the idea that it's actually an anachronistic belief in magic to boot.

                  But in any case, the important thing is pointing out the magical thinking.

          2. Strictly speaking, theology is just mythology about god(s). There are plenty of mythologies (animist, shamanist, humanist, etc.) that don't involve gods. In this case, I think it's apt to say that it's a theology since government is their god. However, I do agree that from the perspective of a culture steeped in monotheism, theology has more credence than mythology in most people's minds.

  21. Why Did Alcoholic Beverage Control Cops Beat This Black UVA Student Bloody?

    Why is his skin color relevent?

    1. Because the media believes that police act violently and violate people's rights because of entrenched and systematic racism, not because of the inevitable institutional corruption that comes with sending armed agents out to enforce petty progressive dictates.

      1. "Because the media believes"

        Would that include Reason? Because this HyR story starts out with "a Black..."

        1. Cops come down more heavily on blacks than whites. Lefties want to emphasize the racial disparity while libertarians emphasize the overpolicing and abuses of power that exacerbate racial disparities originating from cultural insularity resulting from decades of welfarism, piss-poor public schools, economic controls like minimum wage and affirmative action, and the war on drugs, but I've long ago exceeded the the twitter limit. So noting race has to suffice.

          1. Also, the direct transition from government enforced economic discrimination to welfarism in the 60s, which meant that black males who were never given a chance to stand on their own two feet economically were immediately forced to compete with Uncle Sugar, proving to be a quick coup de grace to the black family...

    2. Sadly, it probably is. One hell of a lot of the Progressive State is built on the bland assumption that blacks (among others) are never really fully adult citizens. One of the all time great cons is the narrative the Progressives have created that Progressive Democrats are On The Side of opressed African-Americans.

      If the Black underclass ever wakes up from that particular opium dream the price for it is going to be horrific.

      1. Progressives seek to subsidize the worst aspects of black culture, like paying people to maintain single parent households, forcing affirmative action on employers and of course paying people not to work at all.

        By nurturing the the most degenerate aspects of the culture and indeed by keeping their culture effectively separate from the general culture at large, they're keeping them on the electoral plantation. Which is really the whole purpose of pursuing policies of "diversity" in the first place. LBJ said it best when he semi-privately declared that the Great Society programs will "have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years."

        1. Actually, the Progressives are worse that that. It would be bad enough if they subsidized the worst aspects of "Black Culture" to keep the Blacks down, but that isn't why they do it. They do it because they flat out don't believe that Blacks (among a lot of others) can take responsibility for themselves. They think, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that in the absence their policies, Blacks would STILL have a dysfunctional culture. They think that without their wonderful selves, the world would revert to total barbarism.

          They are guillotine bait.

    3. It shouldn't be. In fact it's a true suckers' reaction to keep pointing out skin color in these cases. It's takes the focus off what's most important, the endless strings of violent assaults on our liberties.

    4. Why is his skin color relevent?

      There are claims being made that there is a history of unequal enforcement, targeting black people.

      Which is bad, if true. However, I would really, really prefer that Reason, at least, leave the racial angle out unless its shown to be present.

      Unfortunately, a potential opportunity for seriously addressing this problem has been highjacked by the racebaiters. I wish Reason wouldn't play along.

      1. The problem, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is that it very likely IS present. The Progressive Left clearly thinks that without affirmative action there would be no Black college students. Their government policies clearly show that they don't believe that Blacks can be expected to behave like "real people". So when an outrageously Progressive bunch of government stooges like the ABC police attack a Black student, the existence of racism as a motive is a reasonable assumption.

        What needs to be combated is the narrative that racism is Conservative/Right instead of Progressive/Left.

        1. While I agree with most of what you said, it's impossible for any of us to say that it would not have happened had he been white. It's just that, had he been white, this almost certainly would've never hit the national media, because there wasn't the race-narrative to address.

          Moreover, I share the Colonel's disappointment that the police brutality angle keeps getting sidelined in favor of the (more interesting to the media-class) issue of "institutional racism." And then everyone starts screaming and bringing out their grievances, and nothing ever happens once everyone is done shouting, and the media is then able to eventually spin the "this problem is chronic and enduring" next time some story hits the news. Rinse and repeat.

          I guess actually addressing the issue of cop-militarization would rob the media and the race baiters of their narrative, though, wouldn't it? If the cops weren't cracking everyone's skulls at first opportunity, it'd be more difficult to find examples of them doing it to black people, and then throw in the charge of racism.

          OT: More local cop hijinks...

          1. So, what we need to do is keep bring the discussion BACK to police and government overreach. Keep asking why all the attention on Ferguson and so little on the baby hurt by a SWAT raid in Georgia. I believe it is because the Left WANTS to highlight cases where brown people get killed and there is little to no chance that the killer will be punished (because he was in the right); it helps weld the brown folks to the Liberal side ... While not undermining the State authority that makes the Left cream their panties.

            1. Yes, that is the sentiment at the heart of my complaint. All this focus on race is just seeking to validate the progressive narrative, rather than focus on the core issue(s) of police militarization, brutality, and overreach.

  22. "According to Jezebel..."

    (Huffs dramatically)

    'Psychotic. Gamergate. Juveniles'

  23. Also, stop pretending you all aren't totally racist. Because, like, your small government fetish is really just code-language for wanting slaves.

    1. *snerk*

      Progressivism is simply the urge to Rule that motivated the Plantation Aristocracy thinly disguised by new rhetoric. The Democrat Party is, and always has been, the party of racism.

  24. More background on the alleged "perpetrator"/victim:

    "Former Kenwood Academy principal Elizabeth Kirby told the Tribune on Wednesday night that Johnson is a "great, wonderful, brilliant leader" and said, "He's the epitome of the kind of student you want to graduate from your school."

    Kirby said she learned about the incident through other graduates and confirmed Johnson's identity after seeing photos from his arrest.

    "You hear of this too often, and it just shows, it doesn't matter what accolades they have, for this type of violence and brutality to happen," she said. "It's sad."

    Kirby said Johnson held scholarship offers from several colleges, but "loved U. Va." While in high school he was involved in a leadership organization called Kappa League as well as sports."

    1. He broke the law... some law, anyway. He deserves what he got.


  25. Here's what I'd really like to know - what were they arresting him for in the first place? He got turned away at the door, justice is served, blah blah blah....where exactly do cops come in at that point?

    1. He was being mouthy and needed a good beating.

      1. Well, yeah. I'm just saddened that things can't be handled in a decent manner anymore. 15-20 years ago I too was an underaged UVA student who was hanging out on the Corner while drunk on more than a few occasions. Twice I was stopped by a cop, and both times I was told to get my ass back home or I'd get arrested for public intoxication. So I went home, and nothing else happened. Why does everything have to be a fucking reason for arrest now?

      2. Yes, Contempt of Cop is generally a safe assumption. And enough to produce an ocean of sympathy and support from the legions of copsuckers out there.

    2. Do ABC goons have the authority to enforce other state laws anyhow? Can they ticket for speeding? Arrest me for pot? Ticket me for not mowing my lawn?

      I can't imagine that he broke any ABC regs. Hell, the bar didn't break any ABC regs - they turned him away. He didn't use, apparently, a false ID. How is this not outside their jurisdiction entirely?

    3. My impression is that he was public inebriated and they were going to throw him in the drunk tank.

      Basically: Guy stumbles drunkenly up to a bar, and gets turned away by the bouncer, yells some drunken shit, ABC cops show up and decide they are going to throw him in the drunk tank. ABC cops attempt to detain him by grabbing onto his arms to cuff him. Drunk guy falls over and bashed his head on the pavement (because his arms are restrained so he can't break the fall). Nearby bystandaers see blood and assume that the cops purposely bashed his head.

      1. You need to get over this naive notion that cops are good people. They're not. They are liars and sadists who are always on the lookout for an opportunity to to hurt someone, and then they lie about it because that's what they do.

  26. It's incredibly difficult to recognize the United States of America these days as the nation conceived and born within the pubs and taverns of the Colonies to expand coast to coast through it's saloons and bars.

    1. We've always been a country of liquored libertines at odds with puritan prohibitionists. The latter have been ascendant and they go by the name Progressive now.

      1. do conservatives not support prohibition?

  27. Every time I read a story about a student being manhandled by cops for "underage drinking" I want to hunt down the executive board of MADD and beat them bloody.

    1. Makes me want to disband the Department of Transportation altogether.

  28. You got it all wrong, guys. Tulpa is upset that the uppity Negro survived his encounter with the cops. He can't sneak down to the morgue and give the poor kid's corpse a rimjob if he's alive. Poor Tulpa can only stroke his crooked microdick to the pics of his bloody face crying out in terror. That's not enough to keep him going.

    1. The depths of your depravity are immeasurable.

      1. My only function is to bear witness.

  29. looks to me like he was a drunken asshole clearly shown by the fact that even the bar wouldn't tolerate him. But go ahead Reason jump to conclusions again before all the facts are shown.
    If in the end all evidence proves the police overreacted fine but right now all I see is a bunch of people looking for a reason to protest.

    1. Would this be the same bar whose employee told the Daily Progress that the entire thing was instigated by the cops?

    2. So in a civilized society we find it acceptable bounce someone's head on the ground for the crime of being an asshole?

      1. If you are being an asshole and the only method of control left is to throw a person to the ground then yes but again as I stated we don't know yet do we.

        1. Ron,

          Here is tha account of one of the Trinity Pub's employees:

          "Pub staff member Brendan O'Toole said he saw the incident happen Tuesday night.
          After staff turned Johnson away after determining he was underage, at least two ABC officers confronted him, O'Toole said.

          One of the officers grabbed Johnson's arm after he pulled out a cell phone. A second officer then tackled Johnson to the ground, he said.

          '[The Officers] instigated the whole thing,' O'Toole said."

        2. Ron.


          Why, would you like it if I slapped you around a bit for being a shithead?

    3. If you're looking for a crowd that supports police brutality, I would suggest Police One. THEY appreciate copsuckers.

  30. Is there any reason to link this to race?

    1. Well NBC told me that the cop was wearing a KKK insignia and that the victim was a 5 year old black child. /jk they haven't had the time yet to put together such a race baiting masterpiece.

  31. Why does Reason say it's another case of "police treating minority youth with unnecessary cruelty"? Oh that's right...I've never seen police rough up a drunk white guy. In my experience, authority is looking for an excuse to rough up anyone and all they need is the trigger of resistance of any kind. It has zero to do with race. C'mon Reason, pay attention.

  32. Liberals love talking about class divisions, but when an issue has more to do with criminal justice reform, they pull the race card instead. Typical cluelessness.

  33. a general call for more things to be illegal?for the government to do more about a problem?is by necessity a call for increasingly vigorous policing.

    No. It's a call for increasing policing, not for policing to be increasingly vigorous. You don't get to blame police misconduct on the amount of work they have to do. When you increase the football schedule, the play doesn't get rougher.

  34. Who said this?--------------------"As long as you do what we say, you won't get hurt."

    a) Charlie Hebdo Terrorists

    b) NYC Police Chief

  35. The problem isn't that government is bad and corporations are good, but rather, that we have now have a completely distorted, non level playing field where big corporate America substantially owns a lot of government in terms of what legislation is put forth and how, which was previously predominantly for the people by the people. Although this problem of corporate run and supported government has been evolving for a while, subsequent to the Citizens United decision, instead of one person--one vote we have one dollar--one vote.
    Our once substantially voter focused elected officials (more so on one party than the other, but that will likely change for the worse over time if enough people don't recognize the actual underlying corporate ties and objectives of that party) often push legislation because their corporate funding sources are often what gets them into, and keeps them in office. Btw, this is often what is called a "fascist regime". So, we have an effective merging and migration from corporations that run themselves in a substantially government independent free market environment to a new hybridized government-corporate hybrid alliance, who leverage government for cost cutting and competitive advantages in America.

    1. When a government is powerful enough to grant favors, then there will be an incentive to seek them.

    2. where big corporate America substantially owns a lot of government in terms of what legislation is put forth and how, which was previously predominantly for the people by the people

      Where on god's green earth did you get such a incredibly incorrect picture of the past? Did you miss the gilded age?

  36. Big government has shown that it can oppress and create inefficiencies and can be Injurious to the population, and big corporations continue to show that they do the same all too often. Just as this generalizes and is not true of all government or all corporations, it shows that we have to be wary in both instances.
    Privatization of various aspects of government and its supporting systems (e.g. education, environ protect., etc) leaves us in a position where we have simply relinquished the end game to them while eliminating oversight.
    So, we need to be careful not to blindly support those who support and promote corporate centric legislation, which is often created by the lobbying and related groups that they sponsor; since doing that is effectively merging the worst of government with the worst of corporate America.
    Similarly, we need to keep government in check, since left to its own devices is often grows to usurp more dollars and human rights. We have mechanisms in place to do this that were enacted by our founding fathers and which on the average have worked fairly well.
    However, some things have recently changed. First, we have imbued corporations with many basic human rights. Second, we've allowed them to funnel huge amounts of dark and other monies, as well as corporate written/sponsored legislation, right into th heart of our political system.
    To me and many others on both sides of the aisle, this is the real problem at the root of many others we are facing.

    1. Privatization of various aspects of government and its supporting systems (e.g. education, environ protect., etc) leaves us in a position where we have simply relinquished the end game to them while eliminating oversight.

      Actually, it's quite the opposite. When something is privatized, then people have a choice as to buy it or not, or which private entity to buy it from. That right there is some serious oversight, since the people can put a company out of business by refusing to buy their goods and services.

      With government there is in fact no oversight, since once people assume power they're going to do what they want. And governments' "customers" have no choice in the matter, because if they choose not to pay for services they neither want nor need, they are locked in a cage or killed.

      1. And government is self-interested in perpetuating itself and growing. I'd love to see an info-graphic of how many police forces government agencies, local, state, and federal, have. It must be ridiculous.

  37. Out of control, overbearing police statism? Yep.

    Racism? Maybe.

    Let's not forget that this is the very same branch of Virginia government that shot at a car full of teenage girls - white girls - when they mistook their bottled water for beer.

  38. "Why Did Alcoholic Beverage Control Cops Beat This Black UVA Student Bloody?"

    Because they could.

  39. Try the following as a possible reason. Because They Can,which includes the following of course. And They Think That They Will Get Away With It.

  40. Time to eliminate these ABC government agencies.

  41. my friend's sister-in-law makes $68 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for 10 months but last month her income was $12752 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check out the post right here [][][][]

    ===== FOX81.COM

  42. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.You will have business coming to you on a daily basis.Check Here Don't Miss Golden Chance open this site.... http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  43. I'm sick the fuck to death of racism in the media.

  44. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link... Try it, you won't regret it!....


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.