Police Abuse

Trump Responds to Terrence Crutcher Shooting: Maybe the Cop Shouldn't be a Cop

Simple sentiment not articulated by many other mainstream politicians.

|

NBC Nightly News

At a rally in Ohio this morning, Donald Trump addressed the police shooting of Terrence Crutcher, whose car had broken down on the road and who had his hands up when he was shot, in Tulsa on Friday. Trump said it looked like Crutcher had done "everything he was supposed to do." Some police apologists had pointed to Crutcher moving away from police with his hands up, and thus not following orders, as a justification for his shooting. The video was posted on Twitter by NBC Nightly News.

Trump also suggested the officer who fatally shot Crutcher had "choked" (he had previously described the police officers who shot and killed Alton Sterling and Philando Castile in the same way) and should not be employed as a police officer. "Was she choking? What happened?" Trump asked in his usual extemporaneous manner. "But maybe people like that, people that choke, people that do that maybe they can't be doing what they're doing, okay? They can't be doing what they're doing."

This simple-seeming sentiment is actually quite radical. The Obama Department of Justice, which has ran investigations of police departments accused of systemic civil rights violations around the country, is careful to praise even the police officers in the departments on which they impose reform mandates. While Hillary Clinton has adopted some of the language and players of the Black Lives Matter movement (like the mothers of victims of police brutality), to my knowledge she has never expressed the opinion that any particular individual officer perhaps does not belong in that line of work.

That should not be surprising. While the nation's largest police union endorsed Trump last week (Clinton did not respond to their questionnaire at all) and Republicans have generally been supporter of police unions (Scott Walker's public union reforms in Wisconsin, for example, exempted police and firefighter unions; John Kasich's reforms in Ohio did not, but were defeated), Democrats have long been champions of public unions and of embedding privileges and protections for public workers' employment in state and federal law.

While Black Lives Matter's Campaign Zero has identified unfair police union contracts as one of ten areas of reform that would lower police violence, no major Democrat has as yet endorsed that idea. Democrats have not, it seems, yet found a way to compellingly divorce police unions from other public unions, which they support and which support them. This isn't surprising either, because a compelling differentiation doesn't exist. Just as bad cops threaten the lives of the people they are employed to serve and protect, bad teachers, for example, threaten the educations, and therefore long-term income earning potentials, of the people they are employed to educate. A recent lawsuit in California by a number of students, for example, made exactly that case.

As I argued in 2013, perhaps it is time to consider zero tolerance for bad cops. (Bill O'Reilly made a similar argument in 2015 after police violence became a national issue.) While applying pressure on police departments after fatal shootings like that of Terrence Crutcher, or Keith Lamont Scott in North Carolina, to submit to impartial investigations and to hold the officers involved to some kind of accountability is important, so are reforms that would prevent such killings in the first place. Dismantling the privileges police officers have via their union contracts, state "law enforcement officers' bill of rights" laws, and other public employee protection laws, would remove many of the barriers in firing police officers. Currently, it is often close to impossible to fire police officers involved in shootings if they have not been criminally convicted. Yet the standard to fire a government employee should not be as high as the standard to deprive someone of their freedom and put them in jail.

Democrats, and police apologists on the right, have pushed the idea that government workers have the right to "due process," but that notion goes against the theoretical nature of government workers as public servants. If they are public servants, they ought to work at the pleasure of the public, rather than having their jobs protected by additional layers of privileges granted by the government for which they nominally work. Such a set up as currently exists turns government workers into a privileged class, something that is not compatible with democratic institutions. Democrats should listen to Donald Trump's sentiment and embrace it.

Trump's sentiment, incidentally, was shared by a police chief in Ohio, who wrote on his Facebook page that he was so "tired and mentally drained from seeing things" like the Crutcher shooting. Cops who "can't do the job or are scared of people different than you," wrote the chief, should "get out of the job. You are making us all look bad. STOP." It's up to lawmakers to remove the protections keeping such cops on the job.

Related: Donald Trump could consider suggesting a database for police offenders to keep police officers who don't belong on the job out of police work.

Advertisement

NEXT: When Kmele Met Denzel, Terrorism Met Shrugs, and Skittles Met Kristallnacht: The New Fifth Column

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. Come now, we all know Trump said that only because the officer in question is a woman and he’s a raging misogynist.

    /outrage confusion

    1. +1 Bleeder

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

        ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

    2. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail… http://goo.gl/jPtLqx

    3. I was thinking “Trump just said something reasonable for once, how are people going to spin it as something horrible?” I think you got it.

    4. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
      http://www.trends88.com

    5. Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES.. It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6475 this 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. I work through this web, Read more this web… http://goo.gl/401aiZ

    6. Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES.. It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6475 this 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. I work through this web, Read more this web… http://goo.gl/401aiZ

    7. Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES.. It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6475 this 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. I work through this web, Read more this web… http://goo.gl/401aiZ

  2. Trump went even further, suggesting the officer who fatally shot Crutcher had “choked” and should not be employed as a police officer.

    It probably helps that the shooter was a broad, but score one for Trump.

  3. “But maybe people like that, people that choke, people that do that maybe they can’t be doing what they’re doing, okay? They can’t be doing what they’re doing.”

    I can’t wait to see that quote in raised neon gold letters at the Trump Presidential Library and Casino.

    1. Nice – but wouldn’t that be the “Trump Presidential Hotel, Casino and Library”?

  4. Wow. I’ll bet the FOP regrets coming out in favor of Trump today. But seriously, this is why a Trump presidency would be worse than SMOD or Johnson or probably me, but better than Clinton.

    1. Remind me what the f in fop stands for again?

      1. Are you saying they would throw a sister over?

      2. It’s ‘fucking’ right? FOP – fucking overweight pigs. No?

  5. When your right, your right.

    1. I think you’re right.

      /pedant

      1. when you are an asshole, you are an asshole.

        1. well done, sir. Come for the debate, stay for the insults.

          1. It’s much easier on my psyche to lash out with insults than admit I could be wrong.

          2. It’s much easier on my psyche to lash out with insults than admit I could be wrong.

      2. He’s talking ’bout rights, yo.

  6. “While Black Lives Matter’s Campaign Zero has identified unfair police union contracts as one of ten areas of reform that would lower police violence, no major Democrat has as yet endorsed that idea.”

    I’m sure I left my shocked face around here somewhere…

      1. Mmmmmmm, no.

    1. Don’t worry, the Democrats will eventually appease #BLM. Token concessions will be made in exchange for substantial increases in compensation. Sure, the cops won’t be any more accountable, but they’ll be making kings’ ransoms and, after all, isn’t that what makes for competent employees? Just ask every union ever.

      1. That and constant praise!

        /American Federation of Teachers

        1. Unions in Schools = Americans can’t read or write.

      2. Token concessions

        I see what you did there…

        1. #Token’sLifeMatters?

      3. You left out that it will totally undermine common sense and the justice system as well.

        I expect one out of every million food stamps will be a golden get out of jail free card. Within three years, every major drug dealer in S. California will hold three of them two of which will be indistinguishable counterfeits.

        Maybe every millionth GSW victim covered under Obamacare will get diplomatic immunity. No one will remember what a million-dollar-wound actually was and just start calling them that.

  7. Trump Responds to Terrence Crutcher Shooting: Maybe the Cop Shouldn’t be a Cop

    I’ll give credit where credit is due: he’s right. Not only should she not be cop, she should be charged with 2nd degree murder (assuming it wasn’t re-meditated).

    While Hillary Clinton has adopted some of the language and players of the Black Lives Matter movement (like the mothers of victims of police brutality)

    This makes me wonder if those mothers realized Her Cankleness was using them as political props and allowed themselves to be used willingly, or if they actually believe that Shrillary cares about anyone but herself beyond whether they can be used to further her quest for power?

    1. I was going to point out a typo, but then I re-meditated.

  8. I saw a little clip* about this, and the cop was saying she’d never been more afraid in her life.

    Face it, honey; you should hang up the hat and badge and go into the calligraphy racket.

    *Meanwhile, the cop mouthpiece described her as a “Narcotics identification expert” or some similarly nonsensical thing.

    1. Jeebus. I had a whole village once make with quite florid death threats…and they had AKs there. I managed not to perpetuate a massacre. None of my soldiers did either. Obviously we were not police material.

    2. Narcotics identification expert

      Just the concept that such a position exists has long raised my BP. Fuck these people and their system.

      1. Its kind of strange to me. How can you tell whether you’ve got pure heroin, or other associated narcotics without chemical testing? I mean, I guess you could memorize most narcotic medication pills….

        1. Maybe she usually works the crime lab and was out on patrol to cover someone’s vacation time?

          1. A “narcotics identification expert” means sh was trained to say: “IT WAS LIKE HE WAS ON PCP OR SOMETHING…MAYBE BATH SALTS !11!”

            The officer is “certified” to determine what drugs a citizen has ingested based on appearance and behavior.

    3. What, she’s a crackhead?

      -jcr

  9. somewhere, Suderman is sobbing

  10. He’s trying to win over BLM supporters. So cynical. But funny.

    Jill Stein says ‘Look at me!’

  11. on a different thread about the shoot in Charlotte, a poster made a good point of people wanting to cast these incident in binary terms that serve their agenda: either the cop is an armed baboon or the victim was a criminal who had it coming. Sometimes, bad things just happen in a climate where a million armed agents of the state are forced into more and more interactions with the citizenry. That said, shooting a guy who actually did have his hands up seems hard to justify, not that some LEO won’t try.

    1. Oh I’ve already seen it all day in the comments on news sites, and the college football forum I hang out on.

      The story is, the cops told him to stop moving towards the SUV. It doesn’t matter that he was doing so slowly, with his hands up: he disregarded a direct order, and thus it is his own fault that he’s dead.

      I forget who, but one of the commenters here has been saying it, and it’s true: the vast majority of people are perfectly A-OK with the notion that disobeying any police orders in any situation should result in execution. Otherwise, they have no way to really enforce all the laws, which means Mad Max-style anarchy.

      1. Listen, it’s quite simple. Don’t want to get shot like a thug? Don’t slowly walk towards an SUV like a thug.

      2. A friend who is a police officer pointed out that if they (I think there were 3, though maybe 5 officers there) were truly afraid of him getting to his SUV, they should have stopped him from getting to the SUV. He was walking slowly with his hands up, put a guy or two between him and the SUV. Very poor police work and a totally unnecessary killing.

        1. He was walking slowly with his hands up, put a guy or two between him and the SUV.

          I don’t know, getting between a “bad dude” who’s “clearly on something” and his SUV could be dangerous. These HEROES IN BLUE need to go home safe at night.

      3. the vast majority of people are perfectly A-OK with the notion that disobeying any police orders in any situation should result in execution.

        I’m going to call bullshit on that. Most people have had some interaction with a cop, even if it was just a traffic ticket. And the secondary point that these folks miss is the possibility – hell, the likelihood – that there are too damn many laws. When you treat more and more citizens like criminals, that’s not a recipe for good outcomes.

        1. Two things: in regards to your second point, if they’re missing the possibility, I’m counting “being blind to the problem” as roughly equivalent to being OK with the existence of the problem. I’m fine with being challenged on that, but in areas of public policy, I generally take that line.

          Secondly, again since we’re talking about public policy, anything which people just generally ignore when they’re voting represent things which they are OK with, in my opinion. If they weren’t OK with it (or at least apathetic), they’d vote differently. People are OK with insane public accommodation laws. People are OK with the existence of terrible taxes (though they start to care when the rate becomes too high). People, in general, are OK with a lot of horrible shit from a libertarian perspective.

          Once you see mass voter rejection of the various tools of police immunity in these sorts of cases (unions, qualified immunity, etc), I’ll change my mind.

          1. Uh, voters aren’t normally offered a direct option on police unions or qualified immunity.

      4. The story is, the cops told him to stop moving towards the SUV. It doesn’t matter that he was doing so slowly, with his hands up: he disregarded a direct order, and thus it is his own fault that he’s dead.

        One of the problems with modern policing is their added emphasis on officer safety, to outweigh other factors like the safety of the general public or the interviewee. To that emphasis, cops watch training videos like the dashcam footage from the death of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller. Dinkheller was killed by someone he’d stopped for a traffic violation. During the arrest, the criminal kept refusing to comply with Dinkheller’s orders, kept putting his hands where the officer couldn’t see them, and eventually pulled out an M1 carbine and shot the officer. The takeaway for these officers is they are taught that any noncompliance and hidden movement could result in their deaths.

        I don’t think that’s what happened in Tulsa. I think we had a motorist who wasn’t complying, hence the drawn Taser and pistol by two of the officers. So far, so good; covering by lethal force, an officer utilizing non-lethal methods is standard in some departments Unfortunately, due to shitty training and a lack of discipline, she was pointing the fucking gun right at the guy, with her finger on the trigger, when the Taser was shot. She startled, jerked the trigger, and killed Mr. Crutcher. Manslaughter.

        1. And I agree with a lot of what Gojira wrote above. Especially the,

          If they weren’t OK with it (or at least apathetic), they’d vote differently. People are OK with insane public accommodation laws. People are OK with the existence of terrible taxes (though they start to care when the rate becomes too high). People, in general, are OK with a lot of horrible shit from a libertarian perspective.

          Once you see mass voter rejection of the various tools of police immunity in these sorts of cases (unions, qualified immunity, etc), I’ll change my mind.

          Most people, IMHO, just don’t give a shit, because most people haven’t gotten up close and personal with today’s law enforcement, but they have (or their friends have, or they’ve gotten scared about it from the ADT commercial) gotten up close and personal with crime.

          It’s only people like us, and Balko when he was writing here, that have the idea that the cops in 2016 America are a giant fucking problem with their use of force policies, and with the fact that there’s little to counterbalance them. Oh great, my heirs can file a 1983 suit for wrongful death, that the taxpayers will have to pay. That’s just great, and totally stops said cop from doing this shit again.

    2. Sometimes, bad things just happen in a climate where a million armed agents of the state are forced into more and more interactions with the citizenry.

      Neither “side” of the issue will recognize their own culpability. The police have been trained and equipped in a way that results in more people being yelled commands at gunpoint. Urban blacks have created a culture where harassing, abusing, and occasionally assaulting cops is lauded.

      The cops would look much more like the good guys in this situation if they weren’t no-knock raiding grandma’s house and shooting her dog because the next door neighbor is growing tomatoes in his basement. Urban blacks would look much more like the good guys in this situation if their culture wasn’t synonymous with violence, aggressive harassment, and general criminality.

      1. Cops would also look better if they took hard, substantive action in the cases of no-knocks gone bad. The times when an officers is held accountable, like the one in OK (I think, the rapey cop) seem like the exception. Hard to believe you’re out to enforce the law when you are immune to it.

        1. The cops deserve blame for their attitudes and lawless behavior, but the reason why they can get away with it is because the courts have utterly perverted the Fourth Amendment. It doesn’t say, “get a warrant and then do whatever the fuck you want”, it says in effect “no unreasonable searches period, and only with a warrant can a search be conducted, and even then only in a reasonable manner”.

        2. Hard to believe you’re out to enforce the law when you are immune to it.

          This. If cops were made to feel the consequences of their overreaches, I think I’d have a ton more sympathy for them. There is no self-regulation built into the system because the disciplinary arm of the system is just more cops. I think there’s room for that type of discipline (for small infractions), but when property damage, injury, and/or death is involved, internal discipline should be off the table in favor of a public and transparent form of discipline.

    3. It’s important to remember that when you see frustrations like this boil over, it usually isn’t about one incident.

      You can’t break a camel’s back with one straw. It’s all the other weight that went on the camel’s back before that last straw–that’s what broke the camel’s back.

      The LA riots weren’t just about Rodney King. They were about all the things that happened before that, too.

      It all goes back to the one part of social contract theory that I really like. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read the list of gripes. It wasn’t just about the Tea Tax. The essence of the Declaration of Independence is “No justice, no peace”.

      This isn’t a policy that people believe in or not. It isn’t about the validity of any particular case of injustice. When the police get so cozy with the city council and the prosecutors’ office that they can’t be held accountable–when the city council and the prosecutors’ office becomes beholden to the police union, there are consequences, and they eventually become apparent to people on the street.

      And criminal justice is a fundamental function of any government. Screw that up too badly for too long, and you get unrest.

      And isn’t that just as it should be?

      1. Here ya go Ken, no need to go back to the Declaration.

        McCinn County War

  12. Something about myopic arboreal rodents and megaflora angiosperm…

  13. “While Black Lives Matter’s Campaign Zero has identified unfair police union contracts as one of ten areas of reform that would lower police violence, no major Democrat has as yet endorsed that idea. Democrats have not, it seems, yet found a way to compellingly divorce police unions from other public unions, which they support and which support them. This isn’t surprising either, because a compelling differentiation doesn’t exist.”

    Krayewski hit this one out of the park.

    BLM is to Democrats as the Tea Party was to the Republicans.

    The Tea Party sprang up outside the Republican Party because the leadership of the Republicans Party that was supposed to be on their side was actually spending like sailors, initiating TARP, etc. The Tea Party has been a thorn in the side of establishment Republicans ever since.

    Black Lives Matter sprang up outside of the Democratic Party because the leadership of the Democratic Party that was supposed to be about protecting black people from racist police was actually protecting the police from black people.

    If Black Lives Matter is going after the cozy relationship between the police unions and the city councils that work to shield them from accountability, then every libertarian should applaud.

    1. Is that about the same as saying “if Trump is going after the cozy relationship between the Clintons and sleazy politics, every libertarian should applaud?”

      The process matters. BLM may have one positive externality going for it, but that’s about it

      1. Aren’t they also critical of the Drug War?

      2. P.S. Is there someone else going after the police unions?

        Because if BLM is the only one, that isn’t an insignificant issue–and I don’t think it’s an externality. Seems pretty central to their message.

        Also, the support of police unions and other public employee unions isn’t an insignificant factor in the Drug War.

        If they’re going after both the public employee unions and the Drug War, I’m certainly not going to oppose them on the basis of . . .

        Why are we supposed to be against them again? Please tell me it doesn’t have anything to do with George Soros.

        I’d hate to see my fellow libertarians talking about BLM like the progressives used to talk about the Koch brothers and the Tea Party.

        I remember.

        I remember when progressives used to come here and tell me that if it wasn’t for the Koch brothers, I wouldn’t care how much of my future paychecks Obama squandered on bailing out Wall Street, nationalizing GM, or the stimulus. We would tell BLM people that they wouldn’t care about police unions, unaccountability, and the Drug War if it weren’t for George Soros, would we?

        Please tell me we wouldn’t.

    2. BLM is to Democrats as the Tea Party was to the Republicans.

      Bullshit. The Tea Party was never violent.

      -jcr

  14. The megacities of our northeastern seaboard and big cities of the midwest are single party states run by Democrats. There is no way for the Republicans to invade that territory. Even if you look at the few Republicans there are on Chicago’s or New York City’s city councils, you’ll find that the police unions have the place locked up so tight, all the Republicans are getting money and endorsements from the police unions, too.

    Politicians aren’t the ultimate cause of our problems–not even the unaccountability. The problem is in the heads of voters, and if BLM is getting into voters’ heads about how public employee unions are creating these problems, then God bless them. Until the police unions are threatening to go on strike, protesting in the streets, and screaming bloody murder, we’ll know that the real cause of the problem isn’t really being addressed by our politicians.

  15. He didn’t obey orders – what did he expect to happen?

    /cop wife

    1. /with one black eye

  16. I continue to be amazed at how inarticulate the man is, what with being a billionaire CEO and everything.
    He hasn’t really improved from his early days on “The Apprentice” where his underlings – George and a female exec – did all the monitoring and all the assessing with The Donald then grumbling something and saying “You’re fired!”

    1. It’s weird because he grew up wealthy, but he still sounds like a Bronx mook union plumber.

      1. he still sounds like a Bronx mook union plumber

        Isn’t that a good 90% of his appeal?

        1. Maybe that’s why I reflexively hate him.

      2. Perhaps it’s all an affectation and in private he sounds like this…
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WruWJt2KD1Y

      3. No different than Bush’s “country boy” twang and Obama’s “ghetto” affectation.

    2. Almost certainly intentional, given the reception to Kerry’s Brooke Astor impersonation.

  17. calligraphy racket.

    CLAP CLAP CLAP.

    Responding P Brooks style out of respect.

  18. Everything seemingly Is spinning out of control. Next Reason will print the libertarian case for Donald Trump.

    1. THEY JUST WANT INVITES TO REDNECK BARBECUES!!!

      (is that the opposite of cosmotarian cocktail partiez?)

      1. They are a hell of a lot more fun though.

      2. Tractor pulls, bruh.

    2. Maybe they will invite John to contribute.

  19. Some police apologists had pointed to Crutcher moving away from police with his hands up, and thus not following orders, as a justification for his shooting.

    Some *non-police* have pointed out that Crutcher hadn’t commited a crime and so there was no justification for the officers, coming upon a stranded motorist (while they ignored the actual call they were responding to) to START ISSUING FUCKING ORDERS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    But no one seems to even think that the whole ‘draw down and start yelling commands’ bit was inappropriate from the get-go.

    http://tinyurl.com/hu38g8p

    1. “But no one seems to even think that the whole ‘draw down and start yelling commands’ bit was inappropriate from the get-go.”

      I think it was inappropriate, but that’s reality. As a run-of-the-mill middle class white guy I’ve had a number of LEO interactions and about 33% of them have been very normal guy next door friendly, 33% cold and standoffish, and 33% raging lunatics. Seriously irrational raging lunatics 1/3 of the time.
      At a young age I learned to say “yes sir” etc etc and do exactly what I was told, solely to avoid the reasonable likelihood of a shitshow.

      It is perfectly reasonable to say both “follow the orders and not get shot” and “the system really sucks and needs to be fixed”.

      I think a very large aggravating factor in all these incidents is the rampant “fuck the man, take what you can get” mentality that is growing in the urban black communities. And the race baiters keep stirring the pot.
      It doesn’t excuse the needless shootings, but it is certainly a factor in escalating the conflicts.

  20. So, wait, is it being suggested that the FEDERAL government has the authority to fire a municipal or state police officer?

    1. No. No it is not. Did you read the article?

    2. that depends, does the FEDERAL government have a pen and phone?

  21. I’ve also heard that Crutcher seemed to be on PCP when he was shot. A guy walking away and on PCP: definite shoot-to-kill danger, guys, I don’t know what all of this “apologist” nonsense is.

    1. http://www.nydailynews.com/new…..-1.2799465

      By the way, I’m being sarcastic before anybody thinks I’m serious due to it being only Wednesday.

    2. It would seem that they found PCP in his car; given that cops are trained to recognize people under influence, I would bet bet his tox screen will come back positive.

      http://www.tulsaworld.com/stor…..cd8fa.html

  22. Simply holding cops accountable to the normal everyday ubiquitous rules of civil and criminal liability would solve most of this.

  23. Maybe the cop did the right thing, maybe he did the wrong thing, maybe simply means I wasn’t there, and I don’t know the answer to your question.

  24. I just hope after he’s elected he orders Apache gunships visit the next “protest”.

  25. It is called a quota hire.

  26. This statement is crazy and destructive!

    (Am I doing it right, libs?)

  27. “thought he had a weapon.”

    Is there no burden on LEO’s to at least have visual evidence of a weapon before producing their own?

    Jesus.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.