Campus Free Speech

Watch a Campus Police Officer Say Offending Students 'Is Against the Law'

Free speech under siege at the University of Texas at Austin.



Has this campus security officer ever heard of the First Amendment? A University of Texas at Austin cop issued a disorderly conduct citation to a preacher because his words were offensive to some students.

"You're offending students on the campus," said the officer. "The job here is write you up for disorderly conduct for offending someone."

The preacher, according to The Daily Caller, had been inveighing against anal sex from his perch just outside the boundaries of UT's campus. Students who heard him complained to the cops.

When the preacher asked about his freedom of speech rights, the cop responded: "It doesn't matter, freedom of speech. Someone was offended. That's against the law."

The preacher could scarcely believe what he was hearing. "It's against the law to offend someone?" he asked.

"Yes," the cop repeated.

The officer, it goes without saying, was wrong. Thankfully, his department eventually corrected him and voided the citation. It also issued an apology to the preacher. Still, it's troubling that an officer of the law could be so mixed up about it.

It's also troubling that students thought the best way to deal with an offensive speaker was to sic the cops on him.

NEXT: Pray That The New York Times Loses This Stupid Copyright Case

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

  1. Fuck off, asshole. My First Amendment trumps (hah) your ignorance and douchebaggery.

    1. The premises of this article are, of course, absurd. It’s still okay to politely express your opinion, even if it’s a bit offensive to others; but to offend a professor, for example, with an act of insidiously deadpan and hence deceitful “Gmail parody” in his “name” is obviously a crime, as has been recognized by prosecutors and criminal court judges in the nation’s cultural capital. See the documentation of America’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

      So yes, the officer here happened to be wrong about the good preacher, but it’s perfectly understandable that he made this little mistake, because some kinds of offensiveness cross the line and others don’t, and it’s not always easy for everyone to see exactly where the line is. Hopefully we will soon openly re-criminalize libel throughout the country, so we won’t have to use the various legal pretexts that we have at our disposal when we need them. The sooner we do so, the better, because it will help clarify where exactly the line has to be drawn in some of these difficult situations.

      1. Thank you for making it clear you are a leftist troll. Offensive speech is and has always been subjective. Therefore you cannot say definitively when speech crosses the line and when it doesn’t. It is a moving target. If speaking out about anal sex is a criminal act subject to fines and imprisonment what kind of freedom of speech do we have.? I don’t happen to agree with the preacher but I also think the campus police are cowards who apparently receive little training in dealing with civil disobedience and non violent acts of protest. Have fun in your new world where everyone is polite and no one can voice an opinion. Re-criminalizing libel seriously?

        1. Perhaps you should study my comments a little more closely before refuting them with explicit sexual language and, worse, sarcasm. As I stated at the outset, “it’s still okay to politely express your opinion.” I don’t quite see how you get from there to my “world where… no one can voice an opinion.” And yes, libel should certainly be re-criminalized, particularly any of the forms it takes online. Otherwise we continue to have to go through complicated legal actions to silence people who engage in offensive conduct, including above all criminally deadpan “parody,” designed to damage the reputations of distinguished members of the academic community.

  2. He must be a constitutional scholar.

  3. I think the first sign that our culture was in trouble was when muscle bound men weighing 320lbs who can run the 100 yard dash in 10-11 seconds started whining that their feelers were hurt when an opposing player did “excessive celebrating” in the end zone.

    1. IMHO, the death nail of this Republic is Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). A 7-2 ruling no less. As far as I am concerned, this case breached the social contract.

      1. I remember that case. That was the one where the Government accidentally made the case for private, personal firearm ownership in a 7-2 margin.

        1. It meant that a restraining order is just a piece of paper, and the State [law enforcement] has no obligation or duty to protect you.

          1. Exactly, they accidentally made the case for private, personal firearm ownership.

      2. There is no such thing as the social contract.

        1. Not between me and my neighbor, but I’d say there’s at least some sort of implied contract between me and the government I pay to perform services.

          1. The problem is EVERYBODY “pays” the government to perform services. Which in effect means NONE of us are customers.

          2. The contract is you pay and you obey and you take it and like it.

      3. It’s death KNELL /pedant

        1. You just don’t appreciate a good mixed metaphor.

          1. The point is moo.

      4. I went back and reread the entire decision and dissent (twice) and I come away not feeling anger towards the majority, so much as frustration that the state (and obviously the assholes in the town PD) are the bad guys here, and that as much as we might want SCOTUS to do something, I am not sure that they should have here.
        This case relies on a lot of precedents, and I am no lawyer, nor do I have the time to research all of those cited to verify if the opinion (or the dissent) were using them properly or not. There are parts of the majority opinion I certainly differ with. But at the same time, how can one law with the word “shall” be interpreted as allowing discretion, and another law doesn’t allow discretion.

        In addition, regarding the facts of the case, the husband wasn’t present at the time, and I don’t think the wife knew precisely at which amusement park the husband had the children. The police absolutely should have applied for an arrest warrant, as there was probable cause that he had violated the restraining order. But they couldn’t just “arrest him” because they didn’t necessarily know where he was. I do find compelling the idea that a citizen can’t mandate police begin an investigation.

        1. I am sympathetic to the idea that the police are not there to protect any particular citizen. (However, that therefore should be coupled with a vigorous defense of 2A rights!) After all, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! People don’t have rights to something that can not be done. That is not to say that police shouldn’t make a good faith effort, but I think that falls to state or local legislatures to deal with that, which the statute in question was an effort to do.

          I think bottom line, the cops were fucking scumbags. And I would champion any legislative efforts to change the culture of police. But I think the problems here are of a different kind than did police violate her due process rights.
          (I am certainly open to discussion. And in NO way am I defending the police.)

          1. Soooo, so late in the game for this comment, but I am amazed that no one brought up DC vs Warren if we are bringing up Castle Rock vs Gonzalez. So disappointed in you people. Your mother and I both.

    2. I don’t think the actual players ever complained. It was just the NFL capitulating early to the predecessors of today’s SJW’s.

      1. I’m not sure why SJWs would give a crap. I thought it was just NFL management being bitchy.

  4. It’s also troubling that students thought the best way to deal with an offensive speaker was to sic the cops on him.

    Why is it troubling? It’s the status quo groupthink for politics and elections. Someone dissenting from being forced into your moral code model? Sic the agents of the state on them. A little jail time might change their minds.

    No reason they should change their methods here.

    1. UT Austin is overrun with tolerant and inclusive leftists and liberals. Of course they would call police in reaction to speech that they didn’t like.

  5. Serious question, why doesn’t the person say that the officer is “offending him” therefore requiring that the officer be cited for disorderly conduct? All equal before the law and all that.

    1. “All equal before the law and all that.”

      Dude…dude, stop…st-stop it…my sides.

    2. That was the first thing that occurred to me as well. Pretty much always does when the notion that offensive speech should be regulated comes up.

      It’s pretty easy to see the absurdity of criminalizing something entirely subjective like offensiveness.

    3. Because he doesn’t want to be beaten to death for the crime of being uppity?

  6. Austinfornia Uber Alles! I miss the days when we were busy running campus PD off for giving football players parking tickets. Which happened my first semester there in 1997. Some poor bastard tried to give Ricky Williams a ticket and you’d have thought he did it wearing a Klan outfit from the news coverage.

    1. Being an Austinite I had hoped our dumbass proggies would be kept somewhat in check but shit like this makes me depressed

  7. Hey, you don’t badmouth anal sex.

    1. ATBM?

      1. Aqua Teen Bowel Movement? Wut?

        1. Never say never, Switzy.


        2. *narrows anus

    2. Sounds like someone’s never been on the receiving end of a “Badmouthing”.

    3. Meh. It’s become vastly overrated. Like bacon.

      1. Heresy! Feed the bacon-denier balut!

  8. A university spokesperson confirmed that the citation was later “voided,” adding that the officer who originally responded to the complaint is currently in the training process.

    You’d think in a sane country that values to the rule of law, these stupid fucking pigs would be trained in fundamental rights, i.e. the constitution, before they are put on the street to enforce the laws. And that one of those laws requires them to NOT do something but to tell the special “offended” snowflake to go fuck himself. But this is a country that is neither sane nor values the rule of law..

    1. Wrong. I’ve actually been on the wrong side of such police interactions and actually I appreciated the difficulty of their job and knew that I could handle the issue via the grievance process. Which I did and all was fine. No harm no foul.

      1. You believe this is a sane country? You really believe this country values the rule of law? YOu’ve been on the wrong side of cops NOT doing something, like Castle Rock v. Gonzales not doing something? Fuck the difficulty of their job. Dishwashing is a difficult job. Telephonic sales is a difficult job. But you don’t any whining like fucking pussies. They signed up to be societies, fuck them.

        1. I’ve been in the same position as this preacher – prosecuted for free speech. Yes, on the internet and on the street. Several times. I won every time. The secret? Just remember it’s a free country, ain’t it?

          1. You have been prosecuted for speech on the Internet? In what jurisdiction, and who was the prosecutor?

            1. Yes many times. Here’s an example:

              “Department of Health And Human Services Threatens Blogger Over Satirical Posts”

     department-of-health-and-human- services-threatens-blogger-over- satirical-posts/

              I’ve also been subjected to threats of violence on this very comment board. Like I said, the key is to remain calm and remember that 1A is strong.

              1. First of all, for a blogger you ought to know how to make a link.

                Secondly, you were not threatened with violence, you were accused of being illiterate and not very bright, which was well and thoroughly explained; your failure to understand that explanation is hardly doing much to disprove the accusation.

                Thirdly, you were given a C&D which is on about the same level as what happened in the article, and is not prosecution.

                1. Wow haha ok thanks for explaining to me what you threatened me with. I’m relieved that you say you didn’t intend violence, just to call me stupid and illiterate. Also I’m glad we agree that there is no cause for general outrage in my case or in the article. You’ve made my point, but if you’d like to agree more, please proceed, but I would request that you reread the thread to make sure you don’t repeat yourself in your vehemence:

                  1. There is a name above my post which distinguishes me from other posters. Perhaps you should pay attention to it.

                    I have never threatened you or anyone else on this forum.

                    1. Not that anyone here has threatened you. Really, you’re just a moron.

              2. I read the story and I think you are mixing apples and oranges. Just to be clear, they would have been threatening with a CIVIL suit. (Which does of course, bring up lots of issues in and of itself being that this was a government official).
                But in the US, there are no federal criminal defamation laws. You would have been sued. Based on the civil case law I saw, there isn’t a chance in hell this lawsuit would have been successful. HOwever, i grant that the process IS the punishment.
                I just think you need to be clearer about what you were threatened with.

                1. HAHA. Thanks. And I think you should repeat your comment about ‘stupid fucking pigs’ and see if you make any progress with your self righteous moral outrage, maybe that will make your position more clear about what you’re so angry about:

                  1. You see the part above the post that says “BearOdinson”? That is the name of the author of the post. You may notice that the post containing “stupid fucking pigs” has a different name above it, which would indicate to a literate individual that it’s a different author.

                    1. Interesting what you choose to get outraged about. Which is my point, so thank you.

          2. Under what law(s) were you prosecuted and where?

            1. I was prosecuted for ‘defamation’ and ‘libel’ among many other allegations. Like I said, they didn’t get far. Why? Because 1A is strong. And yes I also have a citation, which I actually used against them. You don’t have to believe it, but at least you need to back off your claim that this kind of incident is a huge injustice and affront to American values. 🙂

              1. You are literally saying that nobody should criticize 1A violations, because everybody can criticize 1A violations. I’m starting to agree with the people who criticized your intelligence.

              2. Well, sure glad you prevailed buddy and yeah and a thousand yeahs more for the FA, and the SA, but while not not being the greatest injustice playing out in this world today it is disturbing nonetheless, especially coming one of the boys in blue who are supposed to have more than passing acquaintance with the Constitution or you’d think anyway.

              3. How were “prosecuted” for libel? Wouldn’t that be a civil proceeding? Some states still have “criminal defamation” laws on the books. Was that the case here? Or were you sued by somebody?

                1. Wow you are quite the keyboard litigator. Thanks for fighting for my right to free speech, but I am not thrilled that the ardent defenders of the constitution call other ardent defenders of our peace and security ‘stupid fucking pigs’. To which you say nothing other than to quibble on arcane aspects of law:

                  1. The distinction between civil and criminal law is not an “arcane aspect of law”. That is like saying the difference between the United States and China is an “arcane aspect of geography”.

              4. So wait. Are you saying that the Government has to jail someone for speech before they have infringed that person’s rights? Or just that as long as some level of court rules against the goons there has been no harm?

                The possibility of a massive harm does not make the actuality of a minor harm meaningless.

                1. i think it’s trying to say the second. and think about it this way; if you spend all day smoking weed in your parent’s basement, fighting with bureaucrats for a few hours is almost a treat.

      2. Sure, no harm no foul. The problem is that issuing bullshit citations is causing harm.

        1. Haha ok woodchipper. Try living in France where ‘hate speech’ gets you a year in jail and everyone thinks that’s perfectly cool. Seriously you people don’t know how good you have it.

          1. Let’s play name the fallacy!

          2. Ask Mark Stein abooot America’s Hat.

    2. it’s more than just cops. People like this guy exist in positions with no arrest power. You might think in a sane country that no one would believe in a right to not be offended.

      1. “People like this guy exist in positions with no arrest power.” OK now you people have become parodies of yourself. Please, pick a side. 🙂

        1. Individual liberty. Side picked. Now kindly go fuck yourself.

    3. ‘the officer who originally responded to the complaint is currently in the training process”

      And were the other two cops there backing him up also trainees?

  9. Everyone learned their lesson and we got a chuckle out of it. No harm done. It’s not deeply troubling. If you think you can rely on government to automatically defend your free speech rights then well you don’t really understand free speech.

    1. I thought this was OK trolling until you got to the part about “If you think you can rely on government to automatically defend your free speech rights”. -1 for failure to understand your target audience.

      1. Shit, I fell for the troll bait. -100 to me.

      2. Free speech isn’t free. You must fight for it. That’s what I did. And won. Over and over. That’s why I don’t get all self-righteous and fake-outraged over stuff like this. You are what they call a ‘keyboard warrior’ and a ‘rebel without a cause’.

        1. Free speech isn’t free. You must fight for it.

          Damn straight.
          *fills powder horn*

          1. Hipster.

            *cocks pistol-gripped AR-15*

            1. I don’t the Founding Fathers ever planned for that kind of weapon.


            1. Shit, just a few years ago it was a buck-o-five. Fucking inflation.

              1. Not inflation, price increase due to growing scarcity of the commodity.

                1. Well, there also seems to be less demand for it.

        2. ” ‘rebel without a cause’.”

          Except free speech is a cause, therefore this isn’t ‘without a cause.’

          1. If by ’cause’ you mean ‘grievance collecting’ then yes I agree. This is a good one to add to the list. Read it before bedtime and put it under your pillow.

        3. Aw, gee, I guess the brave freedom fighter AddictionMyth has really told me off. Tell me, though, AddictionMyth, how do you suggest that people should respond to cops citing them for things that are not a crime? If somebody breaks into your house and steals your stuff, do you get “fake-outraged”, or do you just say, “Well, I don’t expect criminals to respect my property…that’s why I have to fight for it again and again!”

          1. Wow. The fact that you would compare a violent break-in to getting citing for offensive speech as being basically equivalent is very telling. The fact that you would compare a misguided cop to a street criminal as basically equivalent is significant. Like I said, I was cited and accused several times. I fought for my rights. I won. No big deal. Nor did it even require much ‘bravery’ though thanks for the compliment. And here’s my point again, since you seemed to ignore it: you woodchippers are getting fake-outraged about nonsense and will go to great lengths to deny it, ultimately for the purpose of undermining free speech. And you just demonstrated it. Again. And oh, I will continue to fight for your right to free speech. It doesn’t require much bravery, but you’re welcome anyway. 🙂

    2. If you think you can rely on government to automatically defend your free speech rights

      You should be able to rely on the police not just making laws up out of nothing. They don’t need to defend our free speech rights, They just need not to violate them directly.

      1. It’s not ‘out of nothing’ as campus speech codes would indicate. Students are being indoctrinated into the belief that ‘hate speech causes violence’ via on-line courses required for registration. If you want to get outraged, there’s a good start. Otherwise say nothing except to ‘blame the victim’:

        1. In US jurisprudence “hate speech” doesn’t exist as a legal term. “Hate speech” is protected speech.

          1. Right, and if a police officer doesn’t understand the distinction then they are ‘fucking pigs’. Thanks for that clarification.

    3. We don’t expect Government to defend the rights, we just want Government to not infringe them.

  10. The preacher, according to The Daily Caller, had been inveighing against anal sex from his perch just outside the boundaries of UT’s campus. Students who heard him complained to the cops.

    If the preacher finds just one person who isn’t down with browntown, Austin will be spared.

    1. Haha. I saw a preacher get absolutely savaged (verbally) when he showed up to damn abortion on the anniversary of Roe v Wade. I don’t know what he was expecting, but God and His angels did not show up to save him from the angry women insulting him.

      1. But this was the 90s and we expected to have to defend ourselves from bith the proselytizing Christians on and off the West Mall and the Scientologists across the street.

        1. Brett, sounds like we went to UT at the same time. From what I recall, back then most people just ignored them. If I wanted to protest every obnoxious person trying to hand out pamphlets on the west mall I would have recreated a scene out of Airplane.

      2. “Haha. I saw a preacher get absolutely savaged (verbally) when he showed up to damn abortion on the anniversary of Roe v Wade. I don’t know what he was expecting, but God and His angels did not show up to save him from the angry women insulting him.”

        This was (is?) a yearly occurrence at VCU in the mid-2000s, students would just screech at them. I don’t know if they’ve advanced to calling campus police yet.

      3. I got a huge kick out of watching one of these types role up a crowd at Florida State. Students would get hilariously angry with this yahoo. I told my friends to ignore him if you want him to go away, but there would be a crowd of 40+ feeding the troll without fail.

      4. angry women insulting

        Excellent descriptor

  11. Obama and this cop = black.

    You’re racist.

  12. It’s also troubling that students thought the best way to deal with an offensive speaker was to sic the cops on him.

    I wouldn’t expect anything less from these totalitarian assholes in training.

  13. It’s also troubling that students thought the best way to deal with an offensive speaker was to sic the cops on him.

    It’s almost like many (most?) college students are hypersensitive, wannabe-totalitarians that think people should be able to be fined/jailed for speech that offends said college students’ sensibilities.

  14. “The officer, it goes without saying, was wrong. Thankfully, his department eventually corrected him and voided the citation. It also issued an apology to the preacher.”

    Still might not matter, unless there’s a large backlash, the potential of being hassled (or worse) by the cops could create a chilling effect.

    1. Exactly. The preacher was warned and cited for his speech. Presumably, he would have been arrested/detained/hauled-away/beaten/tasered if he continued to deliver that speech after being confronted. I’m betting that the cop’s department “corrected” him with a proud pat on the back. Meanwhile the preacher and others are wary of speaking near that campus in the future.

      Voiding a citation and apologizing after the fact isn’t an acceptable resolution. If he had continued preaching, he may have saved some poor wayward soul from ruining his life by having anal that night (\sarc). In much the same way, silencing the [insert any controversial issue] protester prevents him from delivering his message to someone who might have changed their mind. Silencing the documentary filmmaker prevents him from delivering his message about Hilary to someone who might have changed their vote based on the info.

      Sure, the examples are unlikely; but that doesn’t matter.

  15. before I looked at the receipt of $thirty thousand , I have faith …that…my cousin woz like they say realy receiving money in there spare time at their computer. . there dads buddy haz done this for only about 14 months and just repaid the mortgage on their place and got themselves a Honda . try this ………..

    — A?l?p?h?a-C?a?r?e?e?r?s.c?o?m

    1. and got themselves a Honda

      If it was an NSX, then cool. Otherwise: I’ve got myself numerous Hondas over the years.

  16. before I looked at the receipt of $thirty thousand , I have faith …that…my cousin woz like they say realy receiving money in there spare time at their computer. . there dads buddy haz done this for only about 14 months and just repaid the mortgage on their place and got themselves a Honda . try this ………..

    — A?l?p?h?a-C?a?r?e?e?r?s.c?o?m

    1. Are you sure this isn’t, bro? A Honda?

  17. The bigger issue is why are preachers so obsessed with the anal?

    1. Sodomy is such a funny word/
      And what they would like done/ to them

    2. Banging that doesn’t lead to babies I guess

      1. I’ve discovered that babies lead to less banging, which I suppose is a recommendation for anal.

  18. When I was a grad student at LSU in the 70s there was a “free speech alley” in front of the student union building. David Duke [KKK grand wizard, later State Representative] made frequent appearances. He would draw a small crowd who would argue and heckle him in a more or less civil manner, and the campus paper would write it up for their next front page issue.

    I have to wonder what would happen today? Riots, police, manifestos demanding the resignation of the chancellor?

    1. same at Auburn – the right Rev Jed Smock and, later, a female co-preacher who actually drew bemused crowds who sometimes heckled and often repeated back in unison some of his go-to phrases. No one cried or acted offended.

      1. I’d think half the commenters have heard Brother Jed preach

        1. i still remember the part about “traveling the wide road to de-struc-tion” with many in the crowd doing that part with him. Entertaining as hell in a pre-Internet, advent-of-cable era.

          1. Is he still around? My friends and I argued with him on campus 30 years ago. Somewhere I still have a copy of one of his books that he gave me to try and save my soul.

  19. This is far, far more than about cops or authority acting in this manner. No matter what this man’s job, he actually believes it’s a crime to offend someone. And he’s not the only one. Coming soon to a workplace near you (if it’s not happened already): a lawsuit for hurt feelings.

    1. Damages for emotional pain and suffering aren’t a new thing, are they?

      1. That involves something a bit more tangible than someone saying things you don’t like. Really?

        1. Yeah, it should, anyway. But I’m not sure there is a clear dividing line you can draw.

          I’m mostly saying that I’d be surprised if it wasn’t already happening.

      2. Hmm…I wonder if there’s a way to parlay the offensiveness of the Reason comments section into a sweet, sweet payday? Maybe Jackie Chiles will take my case.

  20. We used to get a “preacher” come to State U rail against homos and call all the girls hell-bound sluts and whores. It was received as goofy entertainment and students would argue with him. Christian students would go at him in a Bible-quote duel Everyone understood it was 1A protected speech and freedom of religion.

    I’m sure many of y’all remember Brother Jed and Sister Cindy
    He’s still preachin’ today.

    “I don’t know how the whorehouses in this town stay open ? all of you sorority girls are giving it away for free!”

    “A masturbator today is a homosexual tomorrow.”

    1. This guy writes way better dialogue then Quentin what’s name.

    2. If that second statement were true, I’d be spending every minute of every day at the bathhouse.

      Sorry Tonio! 🙂

    3. “A masturbator today is a homosexual tomorrow.”

      OK, are there actually people in the world who don’t masturbate? Or are these people all totally full of shit?

      1. which would you have more respect for? im pretty sure the real non-masturbators (if they exist) would def be the bigger idiots

      2. I am the master of my domain!

        For a couple days now!

    4. “I don’t know how the whorehouses in this town stay open ? all of you sorority girls are giving it away for free!”

      You get what you pay for.

  21. There was no mixup- he just got caught.

  22. Yes! I’m the first one to notice his badge number is 1948…the year that Orwell finished “1984”

  23. Too bad the guy taking the video is so fucking annoying.

  24. The interesting bit is that they “corrected” him about the law. I have no illusion that he was going completely rouge on this issue. The whole “offended some students” = disorderly conduct thing is way, way to neat and tidy for him to have invented it himself. This must be SOP on campus.

    A correctly functioning fourth estate would ferret this out and run a nice series on the standard practice of campus police in issuing citations for “disorderly conduct” in order to enforce the norms of campus speech codes. Where’s a good student newspaper when you need one?

  25. One night I was in a restaurant listening to several couples nearby use toilet language casually and repeatedly while they were eating with their small children. Their callousness and candor infuriated me. I ended up looking up the laws. It boils down to this: you can’t swear, threaten, or otherwise speak grossly about sex or things related to feces. The language about the poop was specific. You can’t go around just grossing people out like a pirate on leave. That kind of talk is for construction sites and jail.

    To Christians, anal sex is an abomination and that’s an issue they want to address. You can’t stand around making people feel gross. If you have something to say, write it down and pass out cards. People will go read it if they’re interested. Protesting and demonstrating doesn’t do much to sway minds. Write books and make videos.

    1. Are you a fucking idiot? Or just a less skilled troll that what we normally see here?

      I suppose those two things are actually one in the same.

  26. I am offended that this idiot officer is so clueless about the First Amendment. Citizen’s arrest!

  27. The Austin area campus cop is completely out of his mind or just stupid.

  28. Shithead should be charged with impersonating an officer of the law.

  29. The average cop on the street has an IQ of about 90. So in someone’s infinite wisdom we give them a badge and gun telling him/her that you are the dispenser of justice that will save us all. Wonder where I got the 90. The Courts sided with a Police Dept who denied a person a job because his IQ was 120. He was just to smart to be a cop.

  30. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.