Police Abuse

Cops Confused About Their Jobs and Perks as Privileges vs. Rights

Higher standards for police employment aren't unlibertarian.


Peter E Lee/Foter

In December I wrote a column suggesting a "police offenders registry" that could track problem cops and encourage local police departments not to hire them. I suggested the federal government could run such a list and, for example, tie it to federal grants. The Washington Post's Radley Balko (formerly of Reason) wrote about it, noting that it'd be a worthy project for a civil rights or other advocacy group to take on. Given the greater interest, nationwide, in issues of police abuse over the last year than at any point in the last forty, such a list, even run privately, could be a useful tool in the campaign to keep problem cops off the street.

This idea, apparently, is not very libertarian. So says Carole Moore, a former police officer who writes at Officer.com:

As anyone who understands the libertarian stance would know, adding layers of governmental bureaucracy is the polar opposite of libertarian philosophy. Libertarians believe in less government involvement, not more, so adding a government-controlled registry would serve only to build yet another layer of government into the criminal justice hiring system—that brings up another issue.

Police already have a bad cop registry. It's called a background check and, in many cases, it's reinforced with a polygraph. I don't know of any agency that fails to conduct background checks on the officers they hire.

Moore refers to her own work as a detective doing these, admitting that she and her colleagues "all hated doing them" but insisted that didn't stop them from doing a thorough job. Perhaps that's the case in her department. But there are plenty of examples of police officers, especially those involved in the use of deadly force, carrying backgrounds that, to the layman, should have prevented them from continuing their law enforcement careers. The police officer who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, for example, had been kicked off a previous police force for dismal gun performance and emotional instability. And then there's the related issue of cops with bad records staying on the job, like Brian Rice, the Baltimore cop who had an innocent man arrested in 2013 and was involved in the death of Freddie Gray in police custody last month.

The misconception that having more rules imposed on government would be unlibertarian comes from the mistaken belief that rules imposed on "civilians" are in the same class as the rules imposed on the government that imposes rules on us. It's a dangerous idea, one that opened the door for laws like the "law enforcement officer's bill of rights," which can make it nearly impossible to fire bad cops. Maryland was the first with such a law, passed in 1972, and many states have them now. It leads to an attitude where even criminal charges dismissed for being not strong enough are used as examples of how criminal charges create a "safety hazard" for police officers. In Milwaukee, a cop fired as a result of fatally shooting an unarmed man after finding him sleeping on a park bench, was cleared of all charges by a new state law, and has applied for disability for severe post-traumatic stress disorder. There's nothing libertarian about any of this, but there is a more libertarian solution than a police offenders registry: the elimination of police unions and the legally-granted privileges afforded police officers that keep so many problem ones on the streets.

As a final note, Moore writes that I have an "apparent dislike of the police profession." It's a popular smear, used especially when pointing out how awful police unions can be. But it's not true. I have a dislike of the laws that protect bad cops and a dislike of the kind of nanny state laws all kinds of cops are ordered to enforce that tend to create the space for unnecessary violent encounters. Both the former and the latter there ought to be less of, a libertarian and democratic proposition, and one that has nothing to do with disliking cops.

Moore says she couldn't find a "single redeeming law enforcement story" on the site. Not sure how hard she looked. Here are a few:

Swedish Cops on Vacation in NYC Stop Assault, Hold Homeless Man Until Police Come, Without Escalating the Situation

Ex-Baltimore Cop Alleges Retaliation for Reporting Police Brutality

Dallas Cop Disarms Armed Suspect Without Shooting at Him

And check out this Reason TV piece on a cop fired for speaking out against ticket and arrest quotas:

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on Hillary Clinton's Dubious Immigration Plan

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

  1. As anyone who understands the libertarian stance would know, adding layers of governmental bureaucracy is the polar opposite of libertarian philosophy.

    Oh, my. I don’t like where this is going.

    1. Hey Ed, hoisted on your own petard, eh?

      1. It’s not nice to make fun of petards!

        1. You never go full petard.

        2. Welcome to Petardation: a Celebration.

      2. Wasn’t the suggestion that a civil rights group could maintain the registry? I don’t see where that would add a layer of government bureaucracy.

        1. The government has to run it, or it won’t be run efficiently and objectively.

        2. Any group would end up seeing good police discharged, as the bad cops found ways to ruin them. Just like they did to physicians with the NPDB (National Practitioners Data Bank?) Wonder why they hate people with more education? They certainly don’t want smart cops. it as has been alleged.

  2. Moore says she couldn’t find a “single redeeming law enforcement story” on the site. Not sure how hard she looked.

    Ha. Come on, Krayewski. One about foreigners policing better than the natives, two about ex-cops going against the blue grain, and one about a police officer who went off the use-of-force reservation and made his pants-wetting, knee-jerking colleagues look bad. That’s hardly what Moore was looking for in cop redemption.

  3. Fleas complaining about the dog that scratches at them.

    1. Pofleas.

  4. A foreigner, a snitch, and a cop who made the rest of them look bad. I can see why Moore isn’t thrilled about the stories covered here.

    1. Don’t forget pension reform, they love that too.

  5. You all have been so confused about libertarianism. I’m glad that Moore is here to explain to us what libertarianism is really about: freeing the government from pesky rules!

  6. Yet again, I love how having information regarding job performance – whether it be cops or teachers – is suddenly making government employees pick up the battle standard against “bureaucracy.”

  7. “Libertarians believe in less government involvement, not more, so adding a government-controlled registry would serve only to build yet another layer of government into the criminal justice hiring system”

    For libertarians, if government has any legitimate function at all, it is to protect our rights.

    The legitimate function of the police is to protect our rights from criminals.

    We also have a legitimate function of government in the criminal court system, whose legitimate job, in part, is to protect our rights from the police.

    There is also a legitimate function of government in the local elected officials to oversee the police–and help to protect our rights from the police.

    It is not unlibertarian to advocate using government to protect our rights from the police. That is actually a legitimate use of libertarian government. If government has any legitimate purpose at all, it is to protect our rights–from threats of abuse like the police.

    1. But what about the rights of the police? I mean, they have rights too! Like the right to go home to their families, even if it means breaking the laws that they enforce! You can’t hold the police accountable for their actions! Then they might second-guess themselves, and that could result in their being killed! That’s why they must have the right to kill innocent people! Otherwise they might not go home to their families! What about the right of innocent people to go home to their families you ask? Well, uh, um, they’re not police! Police come first! They’re selfless protectors! Police rights! Police rights! Police rights!

      1. Yeah, cops have a rights, too.

        They have the right to remain silent.

        They have the right to an attorney.

        1. Shit in many states. They cannot be interviewed without an attorney, they have the right to 24 hours between incident and interview, and they cannot be disciplined while an investigation in ongoing.

      2. But what about the rights of the police? I mean, they have rights too!

        And yet the people who scream this the loudest are the first to insist that the police aren’t civilians.

  8. I had an interesting conversation with a friend who works for a county government that requires people in his position to train as police deputies (in case of zombie apocalypse or whatever). He says that all cops are required to take psych evaluations, but County A likes their cops warm and fuzzy, while County B likes them aggressive and dickish. They don’t publish the results of the psych evaluations, but apparently they get to mold their force how they like. Also, highway patrol has quotas, it is rumored.

    1. Oh, look. Whoever is running the “Tony” handle forgot to switch back in order to make a non-trolling comment.

      This is exactly how Tulpa got outted. But you watch, some will continue to think arguing with this puppet is useful, or even “fun.”

      1. Yeah, that isn’t “Tony”.

      2. Just grow the fuck up. I’ve never met another group of people for whom the same jokes are funny when repeated literally hundreds and hundreds of times.

        1. Fuck off, you troll cunt. This little game of yours has never been funny for anyone but you.

          1. But I did meet a 5 year-old who was equally entertained every one of the countless times he rewatched Disney’s The Aristocats.

            1. The Aristocats is racist, Tony.


              Stop being a racist.

              1. That’s Lady and the Tramp dumb bitch.

                1. “That’s Lady and the Tramp dumb bitch.”

                  That’s misogynistic, and you’re still a racist. Stop being a misogynistic racist.

                  Can’t say I’m sorry I’m not up on your favorite racist cartoons.

                  Isn ‘t this the racist Aristocats?


                  Indoctrinating 5-year-olds with your disgusting racism is disgraceful, “Tony”.

              2. But everybody wants to be a cat!

        2. And yet you’ve been the same joke, here, for…how many years now?

          1. And how many years has American and shrike been doing it as well, Ken? Why we have so many deranged dipshits obsessed with trying to disrupt this site is a source of continual fascination. It goes beyond them finding an ample food supply; it borders on folie duex.

            1. Three liberals means “so many” deranged dipshits, who disrupt your precious circle jerk by daring to have differing political opinions on some matters. For some unknown reason the fire-breathing Jesus freaks are more tolerated, despite wanting no less government than liberals, just inserted into bodily orifices instead of bank accounts.

              1. No more food for you today, you fake little cunt puppet.

                1. Cunt Puppet, my Pussy Riot solidarity cover band.

                  1. I’d go with “Cooter Melee” as the name of my PR cover band.

                    1. Tang Tussle?

                    2. Snatch Cagematch.

                    3. Clobberin’ Cooters, sloop. The Clobberin’ Cooters.

                  2. The Bearded Clams

              2. Three liberals means “so many” deranged dipshits

                Did Tony just claim American as one of his own? Shit, that just about proves the sock has a new hand up it’s ass.

            2. it borders on folie duex.

              I would have gone with amour fou.

        3. Much better.

        4. The only joke here is you, and you’re too stupid to get it.

  9. Ex-Baltimore Cop Alleges Retaliation for Reporting Police Brutality

    You know which other ex-cop claimed retaliation after reporting excessive force?

    1. Judge Dredd?

    2. Serpico?

    3. Christopher Dorner?

      1. Bingo. How do you like snitches NOW? Checkmate, anarchists.

        1. sloopy gets my vote.

      2. I miss that crazy bastard. He would have put on a great TV trial if they could have arrested him.

  10. It’s sooooooooo unlibertarian not to love the boot that stamps your face.

    1. I guess you want some sort of boot registry now. Typical girlarchist!

      1. She is the worst, so this is no surprise.

  11. How about these solutions?:

    1. Stop recognizing / negotiating with Police Unions.

    2. Make the Police at-will employees and treat them as such.

    3. Stop giving new Officers pensions – match contributions into 401k / 403b plans.

    4. Revisit / limit qualified immunity.

    (These all should apply to every government employee)

    1. 5. mandatory liability insurance

      1. 5. Would have to be connected to 4. Except 4. should be “Get rid of qualified immunity”.

      2. This might work in the short term, but eventually either the employer (taxpayers) would pick up the premiums directly or salaries would go up to cover the insurance premiums.

        1. Even tying it to the department rather than the individuals cop would have the effect of enforcing some price sensitivity. Departments aren’t going to pay unaffordable salaries to cover high premiums for bad cops, and in fact might be a little pickier about the potential firebrands they bring onboard. As it is, taxpayers are on the hook with no repercussions for cop or force.

          1. (They wouldn’t pay unaffordable salaries because if they could have pushed for higher salaries they’d have done so already. With liability insurers providing scaling price pushback it changes the incentives for everyone, including taxpayers, because taxpayers resist tax increases for whatever reason. So departments have a reason to rein in abusive cops, and cops have a reason to avoid lawsuits, adopt body cameras, and report malfeasant coworkers lest they see their own salaries suffer.)

            1. It’s already being paid, whether it’s coming out of the department or the larger municipality and whether it’s labeled premiums or payouts. It’s just seen as a cost of doing business. Maybe pushing it down to individual cops would change that, but I’m skeptical and I think eventually the departments would just pick up the costs (again).

              1. Thinking about this some more– insurers generally disallow claims for criminal acts, so they would have an incentive to push for stronger investigations and dispositions to avoid paying out claims.

                Maybe it would make a difference, even if it’s just incremental.

              2. There’s a tremendous difference between a cash settlement made without any admission of fault and watching the budget become strained by premium or salary payments, especially with a third party, the insurer, pressuring the department to clean up its ranks. At the very least it means that ininsurably risky cops can no longer patrol or carry a service weapon, making them effectively unemployable (which should be the case regardless). It’s not a perfect solution, I agree, but as it’s a way for taxpayers to buck being used as a slush fund for the misdeeds of bad cops.

                1. I was going to suggest this when I saw the article.

                  Require each police officer to be covered by an individual liability insurance policy, issued by a private company. Cops who become risks then have higher premiums, to the point where they no longer want to pay and thus quit, or the provider refuses to issue a policy.

                  I’d be OK with subsiding the standard cost of insurance so that those with average or lower premiums do not suffer any out of pocket costs simply because of a new system – but offenders should pay out of their own pockets, not those of the taxpayer.

      3. 6. Health insurance via ACA

        Also, it’s not fair to single-out police – extend to all Public Sector employees.

  12. Maybe they should be less strict in their background checks. You don’t want (more) violent psychopaths as cops, but some who’ve experienced the other end of the stick might add some useful empathy to the system.

    1. Maybe they should be less strict in their background checks. You don’t want (more) violent psychopaths as cops, but some who’ve experienced the other end of the stick might add some useful empathy to the system.

      “Time for some payback bitches!”
      *slams magazine into Glock 17*

      Seriously, I think a lot of cops were pushed around as kids and this is their chance to push back.

      1. I don’t know that many cops personally (two, to be exact), but one of them has a Superman complex – nice guy, but thinks he’s some kind of hot shit savior (he’s both a cop and a fireman). The other one comes from a long line of cops (who are also drunks). Neither was beat up as a kid, but both grew up believing in, and trusting, authority.

        1. I’ve only known a few. One literally was jacked up know he could mess with people and their was nothing they could do about it.

      2. A related issue that’s being discussed is how police forces don’t represent the towns they serve. This is because they can’t hire cops with backgrounds, meaning lots of black folks who’ve been caught in the system have no ability to become cops. I really think a combination of both higher and lower standards is called for.

        1. I get your point, but in Baltimore they have a significant African American representation on the force and they still have abuse problems.

        2. Or, I dunno, the system could stop catching people up for selling a product, no?

        3. If the cops aren’t abusing their authority, then the issue of whether they meet certain racial quotas will be much less salient.

      3. I have a few friends who want to be/are pursuing becoming cops. They are all people I enjoy hanging out with, having a beer, etc. However, I would not want to see any of them become cops; partially for this reason and also because they seem to be the “he had it coming for resisting/running” type. And all of these individuals claim to be “conservative” and want less government. There is a disconnect there.

  13. As a final note, Moore writes that I have an “apparent dislike of the police profession.” It’s a popular smear, used especially when pointing out how awful police unions can be

    Can I admit to it? I have an absolute dislike of the police profession. Or, more appropriately, I have an absolute dislike of the people the police profession attracts. Though that does seem to have to do with everything else you said. Maybe without all the protections, the police profession might attract some halfway decent people, since the current crop of assholes wouldn’t last a week.

  14. I think the cop has a legitimate point. We don’t need a new federal over watch. We need to fire all police and go private. When people are paying out of pocket for cops, they will hold them to a higher standard.

    1. And of course hold them to the same exact laws as everyone else. If it’s legal for a cop to search your car because he smelled marijuana, then it ought to be legal for me to stop you on the street and search your car because I smell marijuana. If it’s legal for a cop to shoot me because he simply ‘felt threatened’, then I should be allowed to kill the cop or anyone else if I ‘feel threatened’ by them.

      If you say that I don’t have such a right, fair enough, but then you must ask where cops get this right if the people themselves don’t have it to give up to the police in the first place.

      1. but then you must ask where cops get this right

        Fuck you, that’s where.

        1. That’s a more honest and articulate rendering of statist/proggie reasoning than they are ever willing to give.

      2. Also the police’s interest will be aligned with the public. Instead of treating us like ATMs they will focus on violent crime and property protection, that is if they want their contract renewed.

        1. Because lest we forget, the police are ostensibly providing an economic product and we proles are ostensibly their customers. Now it’s true they have a monopoly, and they therefore suck at providing economic products, and we as customers have no choice in the matter. But it is to be sure an economic relationship. If the monopoly would be broken and privileges abolished, cops would behave better and we as consumers would be better served and the whole of society would be tremendously better off.

    2. How much have you guys read about the Pinkertons? I think there are some lessons there as far as privatization of police (Pinkertons were detectives but acted in a law enforcement capacity as well). I would love to see an attempt and privatization of police forces. However, I think there would still be abuses and other problems that we see today.

      I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts.

      1. Private police forces don’t guarantee Rainbow Puppy Island and unicorn farts. Of course there will still be bad actors. Humans are involved, correct?

        Private police forces can be fired and replaced with another. Their powers can be stipulated by contract. They don’t have qualified immunity. And they work *for* you.

        Of course, the mere thought of this this would make the average proglodyte’s head assplode.

        1. Qualified Immunity just seems so unconstitutional. Damn Nazgul.

  15. As a final note, Moore writes that I have an “apparent dislike of the police profession.” It’s a popular smear

    Just because I don’t like Nike shoes, doesn’t mean I have an apparent dislike for shoes. But if Nike had a monopoly of shoes, I could see how one would think I hate all shoes.

    Most of the laws these people voluntarily sign up to enforce are wholly immoral. Thus, these cops are wholly immoral. In a free society I would not have a dislike for the entire professional class, but so long as the entire professional class is monopolized by an institution of sociopaths, socialists and authoritarians, I will despise them all.

    1. Most of the laws these people voluntarily sign up to enforce are wholly immoral. Thus, these cops are wholly immoral.


  16. “As anyone who understands the libertarian stance would know, ”

    Ugh, she was so close to “for a magazine called Reason”. Can we do an honorary Drink!?

    1. I made a mint Julip last night and the night before. I’m experimenting to find my preference, so I only need the flimsiest of excuses to drink.

      1. Did you muddle? I’ve found that I really don’t care for free floating vegetable matter in my drinks. I make a mint simple syrup. That also cuts down on gritty sugar dregs.

        1. I muddle in simple syrup. I don’t mind vegetation in my drink.

        2. I used bourbon, simple shrimp, mint, and crushed ice the first night and last night I added club soda to give it a twist. Tonight I’m going to try Rye.

          1. Rye is a good base, especially if you mostly have sweeter bourbons on hand. Rittenhouse makes a fantastic $20 bottle of rye if you’ve never tried it.

            1. I have ritten house. Not bad for the price.

              1. Rittenhouse makes the best Manhattans. Hands down.

          2. Simple shrimp? What in hell are you people(yeah, I went there) doing over there?

            1. Oh look, Paul is another one of those assholes who think you are supposed to use complex shrimp in a mint julep.

              1. That’s it, blame the victim! Simple shrimp apologist!

            2. Add it to Bubba’s list of things you can use shrimp for.

          3. Shrimp in a minut julep…nummy?

            1. It’s a Louisiana twist and totally not a spelling error.
              /hopes no one notices I’m lying

  17. “Police already have a bad cop registry. It’s called a background check and, in many cases, it’s reinforced with a polygraph. ”

    Two things here. Running a background check makes sure they haven’t been convicted of any crimes- probably prior to being a cop. We’re talking about problem officers who are on the job. Officers like king county deputy Matthew Paul. This is an officer that king county admits publicly is a problem officer with lots of abuse complaints and suffers from aggression issues, yet he’s still on the job. Pulling you, your wife and your kids over. All after giving an innocent, unarmed man a catastrophic brain injury, requiring round the clock care.

    Second, polygraph is pure pseudo science. Crom laughs at us whenever we use it.

    This list needs to be privately kept, in my opinion, because the standard would be too low, especially once the unions got hold of it.

  18. Weirdly, there’s a Carol Moore who is a libertarian peace activist. I was puzzled until I realized they’re two different people (and spell their names differently)

    1. That threw me for a sec too. I knew Carol decades ago when she lived in NYC.

  19. Libertarians believe in less government involvement, not more, so adding a government-controlled registry would serve only to build yet another layer of government into the criminal justice hiring system?that brings up another issue.

    I have to wonder if this is not the only subject that Moore is painfully confused about.

    1. She’s confused about the quackery known as “the polygraph”. So yeah, there’s much she’s confused about.

  20. Would you expect anything different from a hack?

  21. As anyone who understands the libertarian stance would know, adding layers of governmental bureaucracy is the polar opposite of libertarian philosophy.

    hat are the odds this mendacious cunt ever in her life lobbied against an encroachment on my freedom?

    1. Somebody else who confuses libertarians/minarchists with anarchists.

  22. Moore writes that I have an “apparent dislike of the police profession.”

    Guess what, you empty-headed affirmative action unit- it’s not a profession, it’s a gang. In a real profession, the members hold themselves and their peers to an honorable performance standard.

    1. Like journalism, for example.

  23. I dislike the profession, since they protect bad apples. A CPA loses their license for filing their income taxes late. The penalty for loss of licensure is severe – you will likely lose your job at your firm. If you’re a sole practitioner, you can’t hold yourself out as a CPA and will lose a lot of clients. Either way, they will still owe the IRS interest and penalties. Pretty severe consequences for a relatively minor infraction.

    Texas cops give out illegal prostate exams on the highway and get hit with a $1k fine and loss of job. Excuse me for hating on a profession that protects rapists.

  24. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

  25. Police officers should get ONE second chance after they do something illegal or just plain stupid that they should have known wasn’t right.

    Bust them back to starting out and send them through all the training all over again, with an extreme emphasis on how the police are servants of the public. There should be training on how to recognize when you’re or other officers are doing something stupid and to *stop doing it* instead of doing more dumb or illegal things in an attempt to cover up the first one.

    After the intense refresher course, one more failure to be a good, upstanding servant of the people and it’s a lifetime ban nationwide from being a police officer.

    If it was firmly established with no wiggle room at all that police departments across the country will not tolerate thugs, power trippers, bullies, people who think they ought to be king of the hill or any other sort of dysfunctional nutter in their ranks – and that any such who manage to get hired will be swiftly booted out and permanently banned – that ought to reduce instances of police officers abusing the citizens they took an oath to SERVE and PROTECT.

    It could start with the unions, if they’d act completely the opposite of how they so often do now where they harass and abuse cops who try to stop the rotten ones and protect the rotten ones.

    Oh, wait, that’s pretty much exactly how schools coddle and protect bullies while making life hell for their victims.

  26. I love coming to REASON’s articles about the police.
    I get good belly-laughs at the abject ignorance and stupidity of some of the regulars, who have ZERO idea of what policing means and what it is the police do.
    Maybe if you didn’t look at cops as the ones standing between you and your weed – it is politicians that make those laws, the cops just have to enforce them – you might get a bit of an understanding of how hard it is.
    As for “more accountability”. There are, some 300 police departments that have convened “citizens review boards”, because of criminals claiming they were mistreated. Have you heard of a lot of police being disciplined or fired in these towns/cities? No. Do you know why? Because, once the full story is explained, even to civilians, who haven’t had the training and experience of street work, they see the actions are justified, in virtually all cases.
    Criminals feel no compunction about lying about being “roughed up” by the police to try to get out of facing the consequences. You clowns seem to think the people out there, who would just as soon slit your throat as to take whatever you have, that they want – the criminals – are the ones to side with. Disgusting!
    Going by the sensationalized, half assed stories the media loves to put out there is no way to judge behavior, but, I know:”We want our weed” trumps all.

  27. Cops Confused About Their Jobs and Perks as Privileges vs. Rights.In my opinion this is the right approach.

  28. retiredfire|5.13.15 @ 8:11PM

    “….they see the actions are justified, in virtually all cases.” Yeah, that’s the reason….or more likely not. Sure, criminals lie and even you could appreciate the level of difficulty in discerning the truth between the formally trained costumed criminal or the badge-less plain clothes criminals. The costumed henchman of the Joker, Riddler and Penguin had been observed to have resisted on occasion and were not included.

    I’m not laughing at you yet because I don’t laugh at a sheep until the wolf pounces. You will probably be sufficiently submissive to avoid it and the boot polish on your lips helps too. Pow! Bam!

  29. By this logic, isn’t getting a judge to sign a warrant really judge “adding another layer of government?”

    I don’t think it’s quite the same thing when setting up one layer of government specifically to monitor and police another layer of government. The police need more policing, especially given the outsized power of unions like FOP.

  30. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  31. “Moore says she couldn’t find a “single redeeming law enforcement story” on the site. Not sure how hard she looked.”

    Get over it, Krayewski. Moore is a cop-sucker. She doesn’t want anything done to police cops. She was probably as dirty as any of them when she was a cop.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.