Police Abuse

Why Do Police Kill People? Because We Tell Them To

Who's responsible?

|

Reason

There's no doubt that in the last eight months the issue of police violence has broken a barrier in the news cycle it had never broken before. Cases like the police killings of Ramarley Graham and Kelly Thomas may have been local stories that gained national attention and even protests, but the attention never lasted. The killing of Michael Brown, which the Department of Justice ruled justified, sustained national protests that led to subsequent protests over other police killings, like Eric Garner in New York City (which happened before Brown's but didn't get sustained attention until after), the recent killing of Walter Scott by Michael Slager in South Carolina, and Eric Harris by Robert Bates in Oklahoma.

While data on police killings is incomplete because it largely relies on self-reporting, the data that does exist suggest police killings are going up even as violent crimes and the killing of police officers is going down. More than 1,000 people were killed by police in 2014. The newfound sustained attention to the issue has produced a lot of commentary on the contours of the problems and on possible solutions. But while politicians as different as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) have commented on police violence issues, these haven't become "election issues" just yet. It's important that they do.

Police violence issues don't just encompass the police reforms that could limit the more egregious incidents of abuse—things like deploying body cameras or limiting union influence on police discipline—but the issues that create the space for the violence in the first place. Police first engaged Eric Garner, for example, after being explicitly ordered to crack down on the sale of loose, untaxed cigarettes. Afterward, New York City's mayor, Bill de Blasio, resisted attempts to connect strict enforcement of petty laws, which are disproportionately applied to poor, largely minority, communities, to the spate of police violence in the city last summer. He insisted police would continue to "strictly enforce" the petty laws because "the law is the law." Commitment to the law didn't stop de Blasio from operating New York as a sanctuary city because of the perceived injustice of immigration laws but did stop him from pulling police back from the kinds of interactions that inherently introduce violence—police authority backed by the use of force—to non-violent situations—things like selling loose cigarettes or possessing drugs.

It got worse. When police in New York City said they wouldn't make arrests unless "absolutely necessary" after two cops were shot by a deranged out-of-towner and arrests dropped 66 percent on the strength of 90+ percent drops in minor offense summonses, traffic, and parking citations, the liberal establishment in New York City went into an uproar. Yet the elimination of unnecessary arrests ought to be considered an unqualified success for the anti-police violence movement. Unnecessary arrests, like unnecessary interactions over minor, non-violent offenses, introduce violence to a situation by pitting police officers authorized, and often commanded, to use force to maintain compliance of laws against non-violent offenses reasonable people who believe they are free may not always want to comply with. When New York City police pulled back from unnecessary interactions with and arrests of city residents, especially in poor, largely minority communities, The New York Times argued such "disobedience" by police amounted to a "civil rights violation." Rather than remaining mostly silent, had individual officers framed their avoidance of unnecessary arrests as a conscientious objection, would that have allayed fears of a security service refusing to obey the orders of its government, even when those orders lead to unnecessary arrests?

In that press conference last summer where de Blasio insisted petty laws would keep being strictly enforced, NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton explained that correcting your behavior when approached by a police officer was what "democracy" was all about. He was partially right. While each police officer who unjustifiably uses forces, deadly or otherwise, ought to be held personably accountable for the criminal behavior, many of the interactions between police and residents that lead to such incidents come not from the impetus of the individual officers but the democratic government and the laws its people support, even when in the specific they may cringe at its application to them or others. It's a demand for the impossible, enforcement of all the laws, even the constitutionally-questionable ones, in a constitutional manner.

Coming to grips with the way the laws "we" support contribute to the climate of constant police violence is a necessary precondition to changing that climate. Cops have transformed from peace officers to militarized forces, spurred by democratic governments either enforcing democratic laws that criminalize the things people put in their bodies because a majority decided it was wrong, or because they need the money (as seen in the DOJ report on policing as a source of revenue in Ferguson).

There is an undeniable racial component to the problem of police violence, one rooted in white supremacy. Cops, white and black, are more likely to view a black person as a greater threat. There's a reason in New York City and elsewhere marijuana arrests of black people are far higher than the rate of use broken down by race would suggest. Drug laws, nanny state laws, petty laws, offer a vehicle for such biases. Worse, they create the conditions for the use of force on people not commtting any inherent crime, whether racial biases exist or not.  People of all races are killed by police—95 percent men. They're disproportionately black but still more white than black, and Native Americans are most likely to be shot by cops.

Some commentators get painfully close to the realization that police violence is a tool of the democracy—of the masses. "We can talk about Michael Slager," wrote Greg Howard at Deadspin, "but he was, if almost certainly unwittingly, a tool. The issue is who wields him." Howard's answer is white supremacy, the institution that creates the biases in the cops, not democratic government, the institution that puts the cops on the street to use force in the enforcement of even the most petty laws, like selling loose, untaxed cigarettes. Eric Harris was shot by Robert Bates, a "reserve deputy" who said he thought he was using his taser. Harris was allegedly trying to sell an illegal gun, in Oklahoma, where gun laws are fairly lax, to an undercover cop.  Trying to sell an inanimate object to another person—a cop sent out to prevent people from selling that object to people other people don't think should own one—led to the killing of Eric Harris. The outrage over Bates' actions is deserved; they led to him killing Harris. But the outrage over his biases, racial or otherwise, may be most useful in avoiding the discussion of the kinds of inherently non-violent laws democratic governments command police officers to enforce with violence. "Abolish the police," Mychal Denzel Smith's Nation headline read. "Instead, let's have full social, economic, and political equality." How those things would be established without the use of violence isn't mentioned. Leaving people alone as a strategy to keep people from being killed by cops has, so far, remained too elusive, too radical, of a solution.

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.

241 responses to “Why Do Police Kill People? Because We Tell Them To

  1. But the outrage over his biases, racial or otherwise, may be most useful in avoiding the discussion of the kinds of inherently non-violent laws democratic governments command police officers to enforce with violence.

    This is why I want to bite nails any time I see an “X” race person killed by White cops headline. Because the narrative is set, any introspection over the nature of the underlying reasons for the killing will be slight, if it happens at all, and it will devolve into another proxy battle in the endless red-blue political war. I hate racism of every variety but every time it comes up in a police misconduct case you can be sure that nothing meaningful is going to happen to keep it from occurring again just down the road.

    1. This is why KULTUR WAR and TEAM bullshit is so, so useful to politicians and the government. They’re committing abuses? Breaking the “law”? Look over here! KULTUR WAR red meat!

      Bread and circuses.

      1. It never ceases to amaze me how much people can be distracted by things that have virtually no real effect on their lives while being very much harmed by the things they’re being distracted from.

        1. Many people are very, very stupid.

          1. It’s an irrefutable premise.

            1. Its simply irrefutable.

              1. I am good; therefor, everyone who disagrees with ME, is EVIL!!!!

            1. That is awesome:)

        2. Wait, wut?

  2. Sal Culosi, Patricia Smith, David Masters, and John Geer. All caucasian, all unarmed, all shot and killed by Virginia police officers (three in Fairfax, one in Culpeper) in the past ten years.

    White supremacy? Pull your head out….

    1. Kelly Thomas, beaten to death on tape, but a gang of cops shows up, gives the jury the stink eye, and presto! Not Guilty.

      Honest question: If they wouldn’t let a bunch of Crips show up and pick their teeth with switchblades, why would they let another blue-clad gang do the same?

      Fuck, for some reason, I think
      You know the answer
      That’s the one I’m thinking of, but
      Why?

      1. Except for the knives, I would imagine that that happens to some extent. It certainly has happened.

        What gets me about the shit that cops get away with is that it seems to be pretty widely known that police routinely lie in court and have been known to intimidate juries and witnesses. Yet no one has any outrage to spare for that bit of massive corruption.

      2. Would you want to sit on a jury that convicted a cop? Not sure I’d want to take that kind of risk.

        Of course it’s all just theoretical since I have no plans of ever sitting on any jury and have been one hundred percent successful in having myself excused every time to date that my name’s been picked.

  3. …the liberal establishment in New York City went into an uproar. Yet the elimination of unnecessary arrests ought to be considered an unqualified success for the anti-police violence movement.

    You say that like the two groups are comprised of the same people.

    1. They sure aren’t. The liberal non-establishment welcomed the effort, and have since been extremely vocal in their protests against policy brutality.

  4. For the record, I don’t think cops should be shooting people, as a rule. And when they do, they should be investigated and, if justified by the facts, prosecuted just like any other citizen who shoots someone. With the same applicable defenses, but no more.

    1. How does that happen though? I have thought maybe a solution is that a sort of parallel legal system that does nothing but investigate police actions, shootings, etc, but cannot employ former law enforcement personnel would stand a better chance of delivering justice than what currently obtains. I don’t think that such an institution could ever be put into place without some kind of massive change in our society though. So what else, short of that could come close to treating cops the way that other people are?

      1. I also think that requiring cops to carry some kind of liability insurance, the way doctors, who also deal in life and death, have to as a condition of employment would help in resolving the issue. If being a thug got too expensive, personally, then we might see the needle more back towards the “restrain” side of the police conduct meter. Police departments would also have to justify why they were bringing on provably problems cops and we might start weeding some of the worst offenders before they elevate to killing.

        1. I like your ideas very much, but the only way they get insurance is if they NEED insurance and for that they need to be personally liable for their actions.

        2. “I also think that requiring cops to carry some kind of liability insurance, the way doctors, who also deal in life and death, have to as a condition of employment would help in resolving the issue.”

          The only problem with that is no rational insurer would offer liability insurance. You aren’t going to insure someone against doing something that they have no reason not to do.

      2. Not having cops.

        Seriously, every time I see people trying to come up with some new system that will–this time–keep those darned cops/prosecutors/judges/politicians in check, it makes me laugh. No system will do that, because these systems are comprised of humans. They will figure out how to gain more power and immunity, just like they did already, in any new system. There is NO SYSTEM that will work for humans perfectly, or even overwhelmingly well, because humans do not fit into rigid legal and bureaucratic systems, because they are 1) individuals and 2) are always looking to game the system to their advantage (and there’s nothing wrong with that per se).

        It is the height of hubris to think we can design something like that. It reeks of TOP MEN thinking.

        1. Because perfect is impossible is not a reason not to reach for better. No system of restraining the powerful will ever function perfectly or perpetually for if no other reason than the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. However, if the mob gets angry enough things can change for at least a time and I hope that at some point we hit that level relative to policing and some positive movement happens.

          1. The problem is not anything to do with perfect or not perfect. It’s the idea that if we just make a “better system” it will fix things. Not even fix all things, just some. But the problem with that is…no system remains static. Any system will be chipped away at by those who want to abuse it, just like the Constitution has been chipped away at since its creation. To me, setting up a system and then letting it get subverted is just fucking the people down the line who will have to deal with it. Sure, our new system is great for us now, but in 100 years it’ll be just as shitty as what we have now.

            Jefferson’s answer to this was a revolution every 40 years or so. Oops! How’d that work out?

            1. Pretty much agree. There is no real solution, just endless tension between liberty and oppression.

              1. See, my main problem is that when people think they’ve made a “better” system, their vigilance towards that endless tension between liberty and oppression lessens. A lot. Half the reason people allow all the abusive bullshit we see today is that they’ve been told, and believe, that “it’s the law” and “we have rights”. But…they don’t. They can’t even carry a weapon or smoke a plant or keep their own earnings. But it’s their system! And so they accept it. Or if we pass just one more law…

                1. Next time some people get together to form a republic, one additional control they need is to employ is to have citizens ingest some sort of paranoia-inducing drug on a daily basis. Because, clearly, overwhelming evidence that they are, in fact, out to get you isn’t enough.

                  1. But but laws!

                    /Tulpa

                  2. I believe H Beam Piper had a workable solution in Lone Star Planet.

                    Politicians and other government officials aren’t sacrosanct. If one of them goes off the reservation, it is the right and duty of regular citizens to chastise said official. The continuum of chastisement, if you will, runs from a punch in the nose, through tar and feathers, to death.

                    Once the chastisement occurs, a special court is convened: The Court Of Political Justice. This court’s sole responsibility is to determine if the government official’s chastisement was deserved, or if the citizen went overboard, and if so to what extent.

                    The novella is available for free on line.

                    1. I recommend all of Piper’s Terro-Human history series books. They will make you drink a lot of highballs.

            2. Jefferson’s answer to this was a revolution every 40 years or so. Oops! How’d that work out?

              Pretty well considering how things could be. As bad as it is, America is still a great place.

              1. Said the guy who doesn’t live here.

                When did you say you scheduled your moving van for? Next Tuesday?

                1. Do you have a point or is it too insipid for me to grok?

          2. There’s a lot wrong with cops today, starting with all that’s wrong with government in general, but also just in their special lack of accountability and in the increasing lack of limits on their power.

            Stop letting them be treated as something other than ordinary citizens on armed patrol would help, as would getting rid of public sector unions (at least as far as special laws protecting those unions go). Above all, they, like the rest of government, should be held fully accountable for their actions, at a higher standard than non-governmental actors.

            1. You keep using the word “should”. You know what? That should tell you something.

              1. Well, the problem is us. You mentioned Jefferson above–he and the other founders were quite clear that they thought this system would fail if people stopped paying attention and making noise whenever their liberties were infringed.

                People stopped paying attention.

                1. Stopped paying attention?

                  Shit, they’re begging to be ruled

                  1. Sheep who walk on two legs.

                    1. Get rid of police and go back to hiring thief-takers.

            2. In my experience when most people hear of some sort of governmental abuse,like say a wrong house raid , believe the victims will receive a lottery jackpot-sized civil award and those responsible will be demoted or fired. They have such faith “that the system works” it has to be so.

          3. Make any position 2 years only. At 2 years and one day, any citizen may freely shoot anyone who has not vacated their position, without consequence.

  5. There is an undeniable racial component to the problem of police violence, one rooted in white supremacy. Cops, white and black, are more likely to view a black person as a greater threat.

    Do these two sentences really make sense to you?

    Also, the racial disparity you note is probably at least partly explained by the higher incidence of poor people being arrested that you note previously.

    Aside from that, an exceedingly good article.

    1. I’m glad someone else noticed that a few of the sentences in this article are rather poorly formed. I’m not a grammar-nazi, but I shouldn’t have to wield a divining rod to figure out what’s written in a published article.

    2. Those sentences are rather confused. It’s not “white supremacy” for either white or black cops to believe a black suspect is a greater threat. That’s just statistics and (for many police) bitter experience. One can argue endlessly why it’s statistically true: poverty, culture, legacy of racism, genes, whatever. And of course it isn’t a universal rule (not all blacks are a greater threat to police than all whites), but it’s not just “racism” that makes police more wary of blacks, any more than it’s racism that makes me less concerned about walking past groups of Asian teens than groups of black teens. I know the comparative odds of those two types of groups being a threat is very different.

    3. Do these two sentences really make sense to you?

      Ed earneded an M.S. in Journalism at Columbia University, just like Anna Merlin.

      1. “earned”

        I gots a BA from StateU

  6. Hey don’t look at me. I don’t even vote.

    1. [lights the Cytofascist “THEN YOU’RE THE PROBLEM!!!!!!” signal]

      1. Hell, I vote. I voted Cthulu, and it’s still not enough for those people. It’s like if you don’t buy into their false paradigm, you’re responsible for their paradigm’s fucking issues, or some shit.

      2. He’s not the problem but he ain’t the solution either. “Not voting” is as retarded as trying to tie me to fascism.

    2. Then you did nothing to help solve the problem when you could have helped solve it. All so you could be a hipster douche-cunt.

        1. No he doesn’t and neither do you. Every vote is pivotal. They send a message to politicians. They will respond to incentives.

          1. I understand probability quite well, thank you. Enough to know that your qualitative assessment of “votes as rhetorical appeal” means shit in the cold, hard quantitative world. Fact is, whether it’s Mulligan & Hunter, Gelman, King & Boscardin, or even Silver and company, the odds that “your” vote is decisive are not good. As such, a purely rational person would weigh the odds and compare it to the advantages of not going to the polls that day (time saved for other things, money saved on transportation, etc.). Just as you say politicians respond to incentives, so do citizens. For the average citizen, there is no incentive to vote.

            1. Every vote is not ‘pivotal’ but so what? They are still contributing to the total.

              Enough to know that your qualitative assessment of “votes as rhetorical appeal” means shit in the cold, hard quantitative world.

              But what about the real world? Where politicians want that vote?

              For the average citizen, there is no incentive to vote.

              If they want to see some actual policy change there sure. Not always, but if the right candidate is running.

              1. In your response, you hit upon the concept of voter salience. Indeed, the salience of an issue to an individual might provide incentive to vote, but that doesn’t change the odds of that individual’s vote counting for something. What you’re really criticizing Hugh for is that he doesn’t feel enough salience toward a particular issue to motivate him to travel to the polls, which is a valid criticism, I guess. However, let’s not pretend that Hugh’s individual decision not to vote in a particular election contributes to any sort of “problem”.

                1. But HM, maybe my vote is that one that could have made all the difference.

                  1. Game of Thrones was on; I understand.

                    1. GAME OF THRONES IS ON SUNDAYS AND VOTING IS ON TUESDAY

                      Jesus, HM, it’s like you don’t even care about Game of Thrones enough to know the day it airs.

                    2. I’ve never seen Game of Thrones anyway.

                    3. Muh hipster edginess /Hugh

                      HM’s point is fair enough.

            2. Voting is essential to us winning the war against anti-nappers. We all want a NAP right? Make your distaste known.

      1. It is still quite funny to have the Canadian who wants to use the US military to satisfy his hardon for killing brown people lecture people about voting in the US.

        1. It’s quite funny watching you try to top the retardedness of saying that I have a hardon for killing ‘brown people’ with the retardedness of implying that Canadians shouldn’t have an opinion on US foreign policy. Peacenazis gonna peacenazi.

          1. Yeah, just so long as you know your opinion is NWS, having no skin in the game.
            So you could just as easily keep your yap shut, since it’s nothing other than a fart in the wind.

          2. t’s quite funny watching you try to top the retardedness of saying that I have a hardon for killing ‘brown people’

            You’d have a bit more moral authority to criticize Private FUQ for that ad hominem if you didn’t declare anyone opposed to total, absolute open borders to be a ‘nativist.’

            1. I’ve never been able to square the circle of Cytotoxic’s enthusiasm for killing Muslims in their home countries, along with his seeming eagerness to have them all move to Western countries. Talk about incentives.

              1. I’ve always assumed he has a big short on lots of land in the Middle East.

                1. mnarayan|4.16.15 @ 10:54PM|#
                  “I’ve always assumed he has a big short on lots of land in the Middle East.”

                  I’ve always presumed he’s a ignoramus and a raging asshole.

            2. I wouldn’t deliver the ad hominem if he didn’t insist on calling anyone who even questions complete open borders as a xenophobe and calling everyone who might question the necessity of bombing the shit out of the Middle East as a peacenazi.

              And I have no issue with Canadians have an opinion on US foreign policy. The issue is with Cytotoxic delivering his ad hominem attacks on the people who (as Sevo points out) who actually have skin in the game. His use of “we” all the time when delivering his pronouncements of what the US should do just irritates me.

              1. “And I have no issue with Canadians have an opinion on US foreign policy.”

                I don’t either, so long as they know their opinion carries as much weight as my dog’s. And they don’t bother arguing with those of us who have skin in the game.
                IOWs, STFU, cytotoxic.

                1. You sure seem to get riled up over a guy whose opinion doesn’t matter but I guess that’s a senility thing.

                  1. Cytotoxic|4.17.15 @ 12:21AM|#
                    “Arf, arf”

                    Wanna treaty, asshole?

            3. You’d have a bit more moral authority to criticize Private FUQ for that ad hominem if you didn’t declare anyone opposed to total, absolute open borders to be a ‘nativist.’

              This is at best Tu Qoque and really I only aim that label at those who deserve it.

              I’ve never been able to square the circle of Cytotoxic’s enthusiasm for killing Muslims in their home countries, along with his seeming eagerness to have them all move to Western countries.

              If they want to hurt us, kill them. Those that don’t can move here. NOT HARD.

              calling everyone who might question the necessity of bombing the shit out of the Middle East as a peacenazi.

              More peacenazi strawmen. How ironic.

              His use of “we” all the time when delivering his pronouncements of what the US should do just irritates me.

              Whatever. Canada is America’s mini-me anyway. And I have plenty enough skin in the game: the terrorists hate for me my freedoms too.

              Another thread put to bed by Cytotoxic.

              1. “Another thread put to bed by Cytotoxic.”

                Another fucking abysmally stupid claim by cytotoxic.
                Fuck off, asshole.

              2. “And I have plenty enough skin in the game: the terrorists hate for me my freedoms too.”

                Oh, oh, look! Whiny wanna be claims some connection, failz as everyone realizes asshole claims are asshole claims!

                1. The Touret’s is also a senility thing too.

                  I said ‘put to bed’. As in ‘time to go to bed old man’.

                  1. Cytotoxic|4.17.15 @ 12:22AM|#
                    “Arf, arf, arf!”

                    Here’s your treaty, asshole!

              3. I’ll be a bit more substantive than Sevo:

                This is at best Tu Qoque and really I only aim that label at those who deserve it.

                Someone could just as easily say ‘I only aim the label “Murderer of Brown People” at those who deserve it.’ Your argument is absurd. It could be used against you just as easily as your opponent.

                More peacenazi strawmen. How ironic.

                Once again, didn’t bother to deal with the substance of the claim. Regardless, you do have an odd tendency to decry everyone who disagrees with your foreign policy preferences as a ‘peace Nazi’ and should probably answer for that ad hominem.

                1. Furthermore:

                  If they want to hurt us, kill them. Those that don’t can move here. NOT HARD.

                  How do you know who wants to hurt us, big guy? If some friend of ISIS says ‘I love America!’ how do you prove this is a lie?

                  Whatever. Canada is America’s mini-me anyway. And I have plenty enough skin in the game: the terrorists hate for me my freedoms too.

                  Another thread put to bed by Cytotoxic.

                  So your argument is that you can spend my money when you aren’t paying for any of it. Come across the border motherfucker, then tell me how minor the subject of American military intervention is when you’re paying to police the world.

                2. Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns|4.17.15 @ 12:28AM|#
                  “I’ll be a bit more substantive than Sevo:”

                  Shitbag doesn’t deserve it, but you’re certainly welcome to do so. BTW, give him or her a scratch behind the ears when you’re done.

                  1. Cytotoxic|4.17.15 @ 12:22AM|#
                    “I said ‘put to bed’. As in ‘time to go to bed old man’.”

                    Did your mommy say ‘night-night’ shitbag!

  7. RELATED: Two Livingston Co (MI) deputies taser each other trying to “subdue” a prisoner.

    http://www.livingstondaily.com…../25896973/

    My wife heard the report on the Detroit mega station. Another dude who was there when this happened called and said – surprise, “The cops lied about what happened, and I want to testify on behalf of this man.”

    The good news – my wife suddenly understands why I think cops lie, and is now thinking that way, too…

    Progress 🙂

  8. Cops are nice to white women though. VERY nice.

    1. Not in Philadelphia, they’re not. My mother could tell you stories.

  9. http://www.livingstondaily.com…../25875669/

    The rest of the pigs’ story. Inmate #2 said New had asked to get a new PIN b/c his wasn’t working, and that the woman working there told him it was OK to exit the cell area. Then the cops show up, start shouting, telling him to stop…and it went from there.

    At this point, I’ll just say I don’t believe the cops….

  10. Enforcer is a mafia job.

  11. Leaving people alone as a strategy to keep people from being killed by cops has, so far, remained too elusive, too radical, of a solution.

    What so many people fail to realize is that legislation is not magic. Especially the stuff that appears innocuous. Legislation gives police the power to use force, and that includes deadly force. No matter how silly something they ban may be, the police have the power to use deadly force to make you comply.

    This is why criminal legislation needs to be limited to acts that harm the life, liberty or property of others through the use of force or fraud. (I stole that from Neel Boortz)

    This way the police would have no legal power over anyone unless that someone harms someone else first. Crimes against the state are essentially crimes against the police. Some of them take that stuff personally.

    Interactions with the cops should only happen if force, including deadly force, is justified in the pursuit of justice.

    People need to realize that legislation is not magic. How many people have to die in the enforcement of victimless crimes before people realize this?

    1. In any kind of coercive regime, the answer is FYTW.

      1. All regimes are coercive.

  12. Even some of those race hustling founders never would have dreamed of a violent arm of the state known as today’s police. Private justice back in the day? There sure was.

    A good read about them cops:

    http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

  13. Looks like that Imperialist Demonization of Iran has spread to Egypt.

    The Obama administration has so effectively alienated the Arab World’s Sunni Muslim regimes in states like Egypt and Saudi Arabia that they are turning to Israel to see their interests looked after. Now that’s a legacy achievement.

    Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit posted this clip flagged by Breaking Christian News which features the popular television host and owner of the Egyptian satellite network Faraeen, Tawfik Okasha, apparently urging Israel to execute airstrikes against Iranian nuclear targets.

    “Our dear friend [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” Okasha began, “please.”

    “Iran faces you and the Bushehr reactor faces you,” he added. “Put your trust in God and bomb it.”

    “We are with you and if you need fuel for the jets, we will give it to you,” he continued.

    1. Now that’s an opportunity to negotiate a solution to the Palestinian problem

      1. ISIS is currently in control of one of the largest Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, Yarmok. They took control of the camp in their typical brutal manner and have engaged in mass executions by beheading, war rape, and looting. There is even photographic evidence of ISIS terrorists playing soccer with severed heads at the camp. And as of today, not one raised eyebrow at the UN, not one outraged speech at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, not one Saudi, Jordanian, or Moroccan solider diverted from jihad against the Shia Houthis in Yemen to assist the Palestinians.

        1. I have to give them credit. They’re making a valiant effort to exceed Pol Pot in sheer brutality.

        2. I don’t know if you have heard, but Israel is the world’s greatest violator of human rights. The UN said so. They aren’t paying attention to ISIS because they are just a bunch of pikers compared to the Israelis.

          They have bigger fish to fry. They will get around to ISIS eventually.

          1. Sheldon! Where you BEEN, man?!

        3. The usual Code Pink etc. crowd has been too busy with the Israeli disinvestment movement to notice minor issues like ISIS.

        4. Want to give a shit.

          Can’t.

          Rocket-launching wannabe-genociders are getting out-brutaled. So tragic (not).

    2. Obumbles couldn’t fuck this up worse if he set out to do so deliberately.

      When your entire worldview is based on false narratives everything you set out to do is going to end up as a shit sandwich.

      1. It’s almost like he lied us into a useless $2 trillion war in Iraq where 4700 US soldiers died in vain.

        Wait – no it isn’t!

        1. Palin’s Buttplug|4.16.15 @ 8:58PM|#
          “It’s almost like he lied us into a useless $2 trillion war in Iraq where 4700 US soldiers died in vain.”

          No, turd, it’s like he CONTINUED that war for another $2Tn and got thousands more killed, you slimy Obo ass licker

          1. “like he”
            That would be Obo.

        2. Commentariat: Something, something Obama

          PB: BUT BOOOOOOOOOOOOSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

          BTW, Please cite the places a majority of libertarians, commentators, or writers defend Bush then or now.

          1. Buttplug only has a limited political vocabulary.

    3. You joke but this may actually be a positive outcome of Obama’s ineptitude. It’s like he’s transcending incompetence.

  14. Every tax, every regulation comes with it an army of bureaucrats and behind that an army (with guns) of enforcers.

    1. a standing army of soldiers, a kneeling army of priests and a crawling army of informers

      1. Neoabsolutely

  15. What’s this ‘We’ shit?

    1. +1 kemosabe

  16. the data that does exist suggest police killings are going up even as violent crimes and the killing of police officers is going down

    See, police killing citizens decreases violent crimes and saves cop lives.

    1. I see some version of that argument made in earnest in the comments section of stories of cop shootings all over the internet. It makes me want to punch things.

  17. Read the Facebook comments on this page about Christina Hoff Sommers speaking at Georgetown and despair.

    TRIGGER WARNING: This event will contain a discussion of sexual assault and may contain comments that deny the experiences of survivors.

    Haley Maness It is important to note that Title IX is a piece of legislation that bans hostile environments that make students feel unsafe because of their gender identity. I’d watch the comments you’re allowing, GUCR– you’re close to a violation. I wouldn’t feel safe in that space.

    That we’re not willing to create a space of discourse for Hoyas is the real problem. This event is supposed to create dialogue, but could one feel safe walking into a room after seeing hours of hate-filled belittling of opinions thrown around? Our primary responsibility is to students of this campus, and seeing how very little of this has centered around how to make GEORGETOWN safer and more productive for everyone, I honestly don’t see how we can see these comments and argue that things haven’t been discriminatory or hostile. I hope that you consider what you’re introducing to our campus by deciding to criticize statistics and ideology as opposed to working towards creating a survivor-centric model of care that truly serves students.

    These people are all morons.

    1. It is important to note that Title IX is a piece of legislation that bans hostile environments that make students feel unsafe because of their gender identity

      So, it’s important to note a complete and utter falsehood. Got it, Maness.

      1. HM, look what the likes of Catharine MacKinnon did with Title VII. Of course, the judges had to buy it and have they ever.

        1. Fair enough.

          Have I ever mentioned how much I loathe MacKinnon?

    2. Yep, they be.

      BTW, what are you doing to stop the War on Boys?

    3. And here are some from a talk she’s giving at Oberlin!

      This one is hilarious because M.K. Lords (a libertarian friend of Lucy Steigerwald’s) shows up in the comments and the feminist reactions to her are fucking awesome.

      Here’s MK Lords:

      if exploring the nuances of different views makes you feel unsafe, i shudder to think how you kids will survive outside the protective bubble of college. her feminism is just as real as anyone else’s as there are many branches. overly sensitive college girls don’t have a monopoly on the meaning of the term.

      And the responses:

      woaaaaaah. that’s some aggressive attacking bullshit right there.

      1. this is not a nuanced viewpoint. what sommers is bringing is not feminism at all. there is no viewpoint to explore. it’s just straight up wrong.
      2. literally this college is not a protective bubble. why do people keep on thinking that we’re shielded from ideas? we’re talking about these perspectives and articulating our position and supporting it. literally, what.
      3. overly sensitive college girls? really? how does anyone saying that “what this person is saying is just straight up wrong” make them overly sensitive? it’s a point of fact, and it’s kind of messed up to make a judgement call on whether or not anyone is too sensitive.

      This is like, so not cool, M.K. Why are you like literally demeaning us?

      1. There’s also a person arguing with M.K. Lords who gets angry because Lords assumed she’s a girl…even though the person’s name is Sarah.

        Now, I’m no genderologist, but that does seem to be a name you would normally associate with a girl. Sorry Lords didn’t immediately know you’re a FtM transexual based entirely on your facebook posting.

        1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          M.k. Lords no one is advocating hurting anyone. how incredibly dishonest to invalidate my opinions and reduce them to wacky ideas. i am not out of bounds and won’t be bullied out of discussing ideas like you all want to do to CHS.

          Emily D’Angelo YOU ARE HURTING PEOPLE

          people are literally saying that your words are hurting them

          that is a fact

          take responsibility for your words/actions

          Sarah MacFadden I felt hurt, for example, when you misgendered me and never apologized.

          BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          1. Is it still the fallacy of relative deprivation if I email MacFadden the link to the video of the ISIS fighters kicking the severed head of a Palestinian refugee around?

            1. There’s some chick in the comments named Olivia who is an American hero. She first posted something saying ‘This thread right now’ with a picture of a crying baby. Then the feminists called her a sexist for calling women babies, so she posted a picture of the Kent State Massacre and said ‘What people apparently believe will happen if Christina Hoff Sommers speaks here.’

        2. Well, it isn’t as if “Sarah” is biblical Hebrew for “princess”.

          Wait, you mean it totally is?

          1. LITERALLY.

        3. Now, I’m no genderologist

          The qualifications can’t be that onerous, are you sure?

          1. Are you kidding? They’re tremendously onerous, and getting more onerous every week.

          2. The qualifications are extremely easy, but putting up with your set customers is probably one of the most onerous things that has ever existed.

            1. It’s tough to be an -ologist of any sort when the categories change and expand weekly, and the penalty for being wrong is severe.

      2. 1. All that the response tells me is that the author does not know what a fact is.

        2. DON’T TALK ABOUT LORDS!

    4. Jebus the feminists, which they are not, have gone completely off the deep end. There doesn’t appear to be a sane one in the bunch. All this shit reads like a discussion between patients on a mental ward.

      That is one heapin’ helping of crazy with a personality disorder on top.

      1. It’s amazing. There are some days when I think ‘surely the average feminist isn’t as dumb as H&R makes them out to be.’ Then I stumble onto a twitter or Facebook thread where feminists are talking to each other, and they are crazier and stupider than I ever could have imagined.

        1. Abrahams and the Zucker brothers, all in their prime, would be stumped trying to parody these people.

    5. I’d watch the comments you’re allowing, GUCR– you’re close to a violation….

      Urge to kill censorfascist rising…

  18. Relax stoooopid mammals. The authoritarian sex drive creates a unique and desireable flavor in the meet. Your Future Reptilian Overlords will provide you excellent seating for our first feast. It’s the least we can do for pointing out the tastiest portions of your species… Cuz quite frankly you all look alike.

  19. Hey look, Slate constructed another libertarian straw man to burn:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..wrong.html

    1. Reddit is what a libertarian information market would really look like, and it is not pretty.

      WTF is a ‘libertarian info market’? Is Reddit even a market? Why would *every* ‘libertarian info market look like this? Slate is really less retarded than Salon?

      1. Yes because sometimes Slate publishes decent work. Emily Yoffe in particular has published some great work and Hitchens used to have a column there before his tragic passing.

        The worst stuff on Slate is akin to the average work you’d see out of Salon. Hell, this article is terrible and is probably better than 90% of what you’d see at Salon.

        Is Reddit even a market?

        I actually agree that Reddit is a ‘libertarian’ information market, insofar as Reddit itself does not have any central authority that goes around banning things. They’re normally very hands off, so long as you’re not posting anything illegal. The thing is that this idiot doesn’t seem to know the first thing about Reddit, since you can basically customize Reddit to fit whatever needs you want by subscribing to specific subreddits. Therefore, to see the really terrible shit on Reddit you actually have to look for it – it doesn’t just pop up on your feed.

        So Reddit’s an example of why libertarianism is a good idea, contrary to his assertion. Reddit allows the individual autonomy and you can therefore interact with whoever you want without a guiding authority. Seems pretty great to me, although authoritarian progressives throw a hissy fit about Reddit because there are people on there having Bad Thoughts who must be stopped.

        1. you can basically customize Reddit to fit whatever needs you want by subscribing to specific subreddits.

          But that requires work, Irish! I want someone to that for me!

    2. Just listened to an Econ Talk with Tabarrok on private cities. Pretty cool. Mostly focused on India. That kind of shit could never happen here, unfortunately.

      1. America has company towns no?

        1. I think they are no longer extant.

          1. What is Lake Buena Vista, chopped liver cheddar cheese?

            1. Not a company town; merely a town owned by a company. You do know the difference, right?

              1. Okay but still a private city.

                1. Cytotoxic|4.17.15 @ 12:20AM|#
                  “Okay but still a private city.”

                  And that is supposed to indicate that any gated, private community is a “company town”?
                  Did you go to gov’t schools?

      2. The Voluntary City is a great collection of essays on that topic. Tabarrok was one of the editors.

  20. I was with this article completely–right up until the author went off the deep end with the “white supremacy” argument.

  21. Cops are only here to protect the system and we are not part of the system.

    1. Bryant: Stop right where you are! You know the score, pal. If you’re not cop, you’re little people.

      1. Well, I said it was “amusing”. I didn’t say it was Enter the Dragon.

        1. Almost as good as this

    1. Now I’m on the list too, you asshole.

      1. Well, I needed someone to go on the lam with.

        1. Okay then.

    2. It was the bear, wasn’t it? Bears are creepy and dangerous.

        1. I will have bad dreams now, are you happy?

        2. That picture is reminiscent of the paintings of John Lurie.

          Oh, shit, that is one of John Lurie’s paintings?

          That would explain that.

          I went to an exhibit of his work @ P.S. 1 a few years back. It was on one of those “Warm Up” party days where they let you into the museum without shoes or shirt and drinking a beer. David Cross was there. I did not start a fight with him that time.

          1. I can’t find it, but i recall a painting from that exhibit which had a picture of hillary clinton floating past an island.

            The name of the painting was, “A picture of hillary clinton floating past an island”

            Actually I think I read the title first, because it just looked like a smudge of red in a field of blue with another smudge of brown nearby.

            1. it just looked like a smudge of red in a field of blue with another smudge of brown nearby.

              Ah, his photorealistic phase!

              1. Speaking of photorealistic…

                …i have some …well, i don’t know what you’d call them…. “Slides”, maybe, but they’re not. they’re big, maybe 2’x3.3′ clear-plastic/cellophane sheets onto which images have been painted/etched/whatever in a single color.

                when you layer them all together, they resemble a ‘photograph’. I have 3 or 4. i cant remember, they’ve been in storage for like 5 years.

                From what i understand, the painter would use them to project each color onto a canvas and paint over it, then project the next layer, until they had a single canvas with the same image. So i don’t have any actual finished ‘painting’ but just a few of these ‘slide pieces’ that were used to make some.

                they were supposedly made by this guy Don Eddy who was apparently a big deal in the ‘photorealism’ thing in the 70s and 80s. I bought them off a dude on the street who used to manage his studio, and collected a lot of his ‘works in progress’/raw materials. I’ve never seen any finished paintings similar to them, so i don’t know if they were even him or someone else that was similar.

                the ones i have were a series of pictures (4 i think) involving a firetruck. the dude loved chrome and glass and complex reflections.

                1. Interesting. Sounds like they could make a cool wall mural or something if you were so inclined.

                2. Interesting, but I don’t think a painter could actually paint that way. (See Tim’s Vermeer for the reason.) They sound like color separations for making color prints. Do they look anything like this?

                  1. maybe. the layers were similar colors. tho there were like 5 or 6 per “image”. that makes as much sense as for what those particular things may have been used for.

                    Although, that said = my convo with the studio manager guy re: the ‘projection’ method actually has some basis in fact (tho whether the things i have were used for that process, who knows) I also new an art collector who was very into this 70s/80s photorealistic stuff and they described a very similar approch.

                    they used a large “overhead projector”, as per the guy’s description, and worked by pigment layer in the particular technique used in this guy’s specific studio, which produced a variety of similar stuff. the result is sort of a “cartoony” photorealistic effect. I guess its probably actually something like a hybrid process between ‘printing’ and ‘painting’ . Examples here and here

                    the second of those two is almost identical in result to some of the ‘transfers’ i have. The stuff i had were a variety of “shot” angles of portions of a fire engine rather than a VW

                    1. lol

                      I just randomly found one of the exact images i have (or a portion of one – the actual thing is the whole truck)

                      Get Real: Photorealist Prints from the James W. Hyams Collection features forty-one prints by leading Photorealist artists that explores the enduring interest of this American art movement thirty years after it came to prominence. The selection includes a variety of printmaking media: lithography, screenprinting, etching, digital inkjet printing, and, in the case of Chuck Close’s portrait of contemporary composer Philip Glass, woven silk tapestry.

                      The exhibition features Photorealist prints selected from the outstanding contemporary art collection of Roanoke collector James W. Hyams, a University of Richmond graduate (B.A. 1968 and M.A. 1972). The prints, dating from 1972 to 1995, were created by the leading Photorealist artists, many of whom continue to explore the possibilities of this form of realism: Robert Bechtle, Charles Bell, Tom Blackwell, Chuck Close, Robert Cottingham, Don Eddy, Richard Estes, Audrey Flack, Ralph Goings, Ron Kleeman, Richard McLean, John Salt, and Ben Schonzeit….

                      So… i guess i have some “color separations” of Ron Kleeman’s prints. That’s nice to know.

    3. I dunno, Russian girls always look younger than they are. Or than I assume they are.

      Oh shit.

      1. Speaking of hot Russians, get a load of biologist/transhumanist Maria Konovalenko.

        1. She’s hot. Not really sure I’m getting the whole wanting to live forever thing. I mean I’m not wanting to die anytime soon and maybe I never will, but forever sounds exhausting.

          1. The capacity to live forever would be amazing though. Sick of living forever? Kill yourself.

            In essence, the ability to live forever would be the ultimate libertarian triumph – total personal choice over death. Of course, that assumes you aren’t murdered and don’t die in an accident, but at the very least it ups the choice component considerably.

    4. Was that the event at Georgetown where Sommers was speaking? I misunderstood.

    5. Is that legal for girls that age?

  22. OT: Watched John Oliver for the first time with my neighbors. Not bad, save for the Michael Bolton ode to the IRS, which was awful. But then what do you expect from a no talent ass clown.

    1. The only time The Daily Show was good in the past seven years was when he hosted it.

  23. I have been critical of India’s PM Modi who is mostly hat and no cattle wrt economic reform but he has done some good with regard to coal output.

    Fast-track mine approvals, tighter production oversight and more flexibility in coal sales have helped power station stocks recover from a six-year low hit in October, vindicating Modi’s pitch to voters as the state leader who brought round-the-clock power to industrial Gujarat.

    As Modi prepares to mark his first year in office and seeks to fulfill a poll promise to provide power to all of India’s 1.2 billion people by 2019, power stations hold 28 million tonnes of coal, a 38 percent jump from a year ago, government data shows.

    It won’t be long before India has 24/7 power brought to you by COAL.

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..KJ20150416

    1. As the asshole who is responsible for 12% of his county’s power consumption via coal, I approve. And actually it is quite dirty… At the plant… Cuz it’s fucking coal you moist-ass bitches!

      1. Coal doesn’t have to be dirty and it won’t have to be if Modi attracts enough investment into it.

        1. Coal pretty much has to be dirty. It’s way too expensive to make it clean.

    2. It won’t be long before India has 24/7 power brought to you by COAL.

      And the “international community” will demand that the US reduce its use of coal to “compensate”.

    3. The government in India has been great at retarding technology. They mandated hand looms and either banned or limited mechanical looms. Power generation has been around a very long time. You are throwing this douchebag politician in front of the free market parade that could have resulted in power generation technology being brought about long ago.

      All of the sudden “he and his government” are responsible for getting power to the people. Never mind all the innovation, and design by individuals. The “some good” this politician could have done is nothing compared to the good free individuals are capable of doing in absence of a violent coercive monopoly a.k.a the state.

      1. And? If past politicians are responsible for retarding technology and this politician makes the choice to get the government out of the way, then this politician does deserve praise for changing the stupid policies of the Indian government.

  24. Rand Paul’s wife and her estrogen-laced plans for promoting the Senator’s candidacy.

    (She has a book out, you know)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..the-heart/

    1. She has that “my body is trying to look it’s age but I refuse to let it” aesthetic.

      1. I bet she’s glad she didn’t go with her first plan of marrying a *witch* doctor.

      2. I welcome our ageless overlords.

        1. Thanks for the welcome. Where is the booze!!??

          1. *searches pockets*

            “That guy’s got it.”

            *runs down alley*

      3. That usually translates to “skeletor” but she seems to be holding it together for now.

        1. She looks very good and I don’t know what Lynch Pin is talking about.

          Leave Kelley Paul alone!

  25. Cops, white and black, are more likely to view a black person as a greater threat. There’s a reason in New York City and elsewhere marijuana arrests of black people are far higher than the rate of use broken down by race would suggest.

    How much of it is due to stop’n’frisk, and how much to the fact that black people tend to smoke it in public more than white people?

    1. Citation required.

      1. I was going to ask if there was any empirical data to suggest if that was true or if it’s just a perception. Again, that perception could be rooted in reality, but no one has bothered to gather the data to show that it’s true.

      2. Just my personal observation from living here 20 years. I should have noted that I am only referring to NYC.

        1. It’s something I’ve heard others say. Hell, I saw George Clinton in concert at Central Park, so I’ve had some “personal observations” of this phenomenon myself. It would be interesting to see some numbers backing it up or not.

          1. The park-concert crowds in SF tend toward lily-white and you can get high several blocks off.

            1. No hippies in NYC. Thank god.

              1. Branson was gonna ship a bunch there………….
                Oh, wait. That was Chihuahuas!

            2. I’m sure the same can be said about any Phish concert*. Still, the original comment was in the context of stop ‘n frisk. Perhaps concerts aren’t the best example, as large groups of people tend to get away with stuff individuals and small groups cannot.

              1. Really?

                https://reason.com/blog/2009/03…..s-at-a-phi

            3. Sevo is correct, but in my SF experience, it is blacks who are more likely to smoke pot in “please bust me” situations like walking down the street or on public transit.

          2. “I saw George Clinton in concert at Central Park,”

            I would not count “Rumsey Playfield concerts” (or prospect park concerts, or any other outdoor music, or even people just throwing a frisbee around) towards any observations about “smoking in public”. Because then *everyone is probably getting high*.

            I mean ‘RDS delivery’ (messengers) on the sidewalk, blazing up outside an office building on 5th ave at 8am.

            In fact, the bias towards “black dudes getting high in public”….in manhattan, during the day, at least? Is strongly biased by the “messenger service”/Delivery people population, which is mostly black, and bored as fuck and has plenty of time to get lit.

            In brooklyn, its more often just teenage kids rolling in small groups.

        2. I can second the motion there.

          white people, for whatever reason (maybe because they grew up in the burbs? and are instinctively concerned with being ‘seen’?) do not smoke on the street* nearly as often. 1/10th the rate.

          (*exception – outside bars at night, where people step out, one-hitter, and go back inside.)

          is it a NYC thing? i don’t have any comparison except london, where people were pretty discrete.

          1. I think it’s more of a “class” thing, which to some extent is reflected in race.

          2. Austin is the only place I’ve spent much time where white adults drive around looking and smelling like Cheech and Chong.

        3. I have absolutely zero knowledge of NYC, so there’s that. On the other hand, I’ve volunteered at Hempfest in Seattle. King County is so pigment-deprived the reflection off their pasty-white complexions would be visible from space, if the gods in their wisdom didn’t see fit to cover the place with a perpetual cloudbank of doom.

          What I’m saying is, I spend a lot of time around kitchen employees and activists, and I’ve come to different conclusions.

          1. Yeah, I can imagine “Hempfest in Seattle” having a somewhat different racial makeup than NYC.

    2. Blacks tend to lie more when strangers call and ask if they’ve done something illegal. Blacks get arrested for “real” crimes more often, and thus get possession charges tacked on. Blacks tend to live in higher crime areas that have more police. People who don’t even mention this stuff aren’t serious and should be ignored.

  26. Question: is the NYPD still doing it’s ‘on strike’ thing? Are they still not arresting people for trivial nonsense as much?

    1. I don’t know, but getting the NYPD to hate him is the only thing Di Blasio has done in his tenure that I’ve fully supported.

    2. No, it ended after a month or so. They still really hate Deblasio though. Anything less than complete worshipfulness will be remembered, well, forever.

  27. Jeb Bush, trying to solidify support from a base riled up by his support for Common Core, urges Republican Senators to confirm Loretta Lynch.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..omination/

    Is Bush drunk or something?

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

    1. “Bush, the son and brother of two former presidents who had their share of controversial nominees, added later that presidents should have the right to nominate whom they want so long as they’re qualified.

      “”I think that presidents have the right to pick their team,” he said.”

      1. “Fuck congress,” Bush was later quoted as saying. “It’s not like the constitution requires them to provide advice and consent, or anything.”

  28. Public employee unions should not exist. Period.

    1. Give it time, and they won’t. Too bad we will have to suffer some unpleasantness before the end.

    2. JFK allowed them at the federal level by executive order. My fantasy is President Scott Walker disallowing them the same way. The outrage is yummy to contemplate.

  29. American feminists are pussies.

    They make up statistics like ‘oh, 1 out of 4, one out of 5 women are sexually assaulted.

    But not French feminists. French feminists say 100% of all women are harassed on public transport.

    In the report, which was commissioned by the State Secretary for Women’s Rights, Pascale Boistard, the HCEfh indicates widespread predatory behavior against women in buses, trains and metros within France. Indeed, it says that 100 percent of female public transport users have experienced harassment or sexual aggression at one time or another.

    1. Well do you want to be the one chick who says no one has sexually harrassed her? Talk about an ego crusher.

    2. In a crowded metro, I felt a man’s erect penis against my bum. There were lots of people and I was worried that no one would help me.

      Go on…

      1. Nobody ever taught her how a knee can used against sexual assault?

        1. Yeah, I can’t see that flying in the U.S.

    3. French feminists say 100% of all women are harassed on public transport.

      Might actually be true in France. They have this large group of “youths” that aren’t very big on respecting other people’s personal boundaries.

      -jcr

  30. the law is the law.

    Seems to me that strangling people to death for disobeying a uniformed thug is against the law. Is DeBlathero doing anything about that?

    -jcr

  31. “We,” paleface? I voted libertarian!

  32. This is why smaller government is better. People hide behind the rules & laws, then blame the victims for bad outcomes. To the extent we elect these people that create all these rules and laws we are enabling and supporting the behavior.

  33. Kelly Thomas was white, so there wasn’t any racial angle to explore of the national media. I saw hardly any black presence in the angry townspeople who actually achieved some tangible results (recalled negligent Fullerton officials) without resorting to violence of any kind.

    The precursor to this movement was the Trayvon Martin shooting. Remember that? No amount of evidence could convince the mob that the nation was crawling with armed racists out to hunt black kids. The narrative was set, and then the Ferguson shootings and the subsequent police violence seemingly confirmed it – even though problematic use of police violence surely existed for years.

    The left obviously won’t accept that the police is an agent of their big government agenda. Or that the union they so love thwarts any meaningful reform. They won’t even admit that their gun violence scaremongering convinced jittery cops that armed thugs were everywhere. No, they insist that the problem is that the cops are racist and they hunt black kids out of hate. Before the issue of race entered this debate, it was common for the likes of Joe Biden to accuse the other side of “Cutting funding for the police, leaving our neighborhoods in danger”

  34. my best friend’s mom makes $63 hourly on the internet . She has been fired for nine months but last month her income was $16725 just working on the internet for a few hours. look at here………………. http://www.work-cash.com

  35. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  36. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

  37. If you really want to do something about policing, go become one. Reserve and auxiliary police officers are a component of most mid-large size police departments, and even some very small ones. Go break up bar fights without being violent. Go tell shop owners that vagrants in their door way aren’t your problem. Go arrest a robbery suspect and risk your own hide assuming he’s reaching for something other than a gun in his pocket.

  38. The article fails in the most basic of ways – it refuses to acknowledge that shooting by the police,
    especially ones that are not justified, are , to all intents and purposes, practically non-existent.
    They have been brought to attention mostly by the reaction of the black community, which tolerates enormous numbers of Black on Black killings, without a peep, but is supersentive if there is even a question about some Black killed by a white cop. As usual, the problem all comes down mostly to the crime ridden Black communities, which the media is afraid to acknowledge. Until the
    news media tells the truth and stops justifiying the unjustifiable, nothing will go anywhere.
    The author’s assumption that we can safely allow “non-violent crimes” to proceed without any enforcement is brainless.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.