MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

"There is no 'War on Cops'"; There is a Long-Overdue Conversation About Police Brutality

The increasingly bad image of police around the country is their fault and nobody else's.

Tomorrow is the funeral service for Harris Country Sheriff Darren Goforth, who a week ago was murdered while filling his police cruiser with gas in Texas. His death was senseless, tragic, and horrific. There's no possible excuse for it. But, as I write in a new Daily Beast column,

There’s also no excuse for attempts by law enforcement, media, and politicians to claim that the unmotivated killing is part of a “war on cops” or in any way related to the Black Lives Matter movement or other people critical of law enforcement and police brutality.

To do so is simply to wave away a decade-long decline in confidence in police that has everything to do with behavior by law enforcement, not the citizens they serve. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans with “a great deal/quite a lot of confidence” in police has dropped from 64 percent in 2004 to just 52 percent, its lowest number in 22 years.

So far this year, the same number of police nationwide have been killed in the line of duty as last year: between 25 and 28, depending on the source (this doesn't include traffic and other on-the-job accidents unless the officer was in pursuit of or actively engaged in dealing with a criminal). 

As my Reason colleague Ed Krayewski writes, “In 2007, there were 67 cops shot and killed in the line of duty. In 2007 there was no ‘national conversation’ about police reform, no sustained focus on criminal justice reform, nothing in the national zeitgeist that would suggest the number of murders were the result of anything more than the number of people who had killed cops that year.”

Regardless, police spokesmen, Fox News hosts such Sean Hannity, and politicians such as Ted Cruz are quick to say that Goforth's killing by an in-custody suspect with a long rap sheet of violent assaults and mental problems is proof positive of a "war on cops."

GallupGallupIt bears repeating: There is no war on cops. There is a long overdue and very welcome national conversation about criminal justice reform and more going on. That's partly due to new forms of media that allow citizens to document how police do their job and, to their credit, it's also because police departments all over the country are trying to stop a long slide in citizen confidence.

In the past year alone, high-profile events in Ferguson, Staten Island, Troy, Ohioand elsewhere have sparked a nationwide movement to rethink not just policing strategies but also the ways in which race factors into law enforcement and howlocal governments abuse their power to levy fines and fees on their poorest residents. The rising use of body cameras all over the country isn’t being done to document a “war on cops” but to promote essential peace and trust between citizens and police.

It’s a sad coincidence that Darren Goforth’s funeral will take place just as the trial begins for the officers accused in the death of Freddie Gray, the Baltimore man who died earlier this year from injuries suffered during police custody.

By all accounts, Goforth was an honorable man and a credit to law enforcement and his murder is as tragic and disturbing as it is senseless. But if his brothers and sisters in blue and their partisans in politics and the press simply use his killing as an excuse to avoid ongoing reform, there’s no reason to believe public confidence in the police will rebound any time soon.

Read the whole thing.

Related video: "Cops vs. Cameras - The Killing of Kelly Thomas and the Power of New Media." This 2011 video by Paul Detrick helps explain why attitudes toward the police have fallen over the past decade. It contain graphic images and viewer discretion is advised. Thomas was a schizophrenic drifter who died after a police beating. The circumstances of his death only became public after his father used social media to circulate unauthorized images of his son's beating and the way that Fullerton, California police reacted is an object lesson in how to alienate taxpayers and residents. The new media environment definitely makes policing a more difficult job but if departments are willing and able to embrace their new visibility, they will not only be more effective in combating crime but in winning people's trust.

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.

  • commodious spittoon||

    Way to blame the victims, Nick. I suppose you'd tell a rape victim to go pound sand just because she wasn't actually rape-raped?

  • Jay Dubya||

    your comment is disgusting.

  • CPADave71||

    Can't it be both? Can't it be that police reform is WAY overdue, but that there are also elements actively encouraging people to shoot police officers as revenge for bad policing? We don't have to pick a side here. Neither one excuses the other.

  • the other Jim||

    That's pretty much how I see it. I am no fan of "the police" in general, and am well aware of the many horrible abuses police commit in this country. But there certainly have been cases recently of seemingly innocent cops being killed execution-style, at random, by people who seem to be anti-cop. And there have been BLM-themed protests where people chant things like "What do we want? Dead cops!" That is unusual, I'm sure. And the instances of random cops being killed are unusual. But that doesn't mean it's not happening.

    Granted, maybe a given number of cops are killed in such fashion every year, and that we're simply hearing more about those cases this year.

  • John||

    If you didn't know any better or understand how vile and stupid the left is, you could almost think that the Black Lives Matter people were moles sent over by the police unions to confirm every possible suspicion that anyone who wants something done about police brutality is just a criminal scumbag hoping to be able to loot and pillage with impunity. There is no better way to to discredit the cause for police accountability than having a bunch of animals running around screaming "kill the pigs."

  • commodious spittoon||

    That's the nature of democracy, though, isn't it? Idiots get a voice, and thankfully chanting stupid slogans lets them vent what would otherwise boil over into violence. I think cops and their apologists have it backwards, the heated rhetoric doesn't incite violence, it mitigates it.

  • Zeb||

    Is there a lot of that sort of thing? I haven't been following the BLM thing too closely, so I honestly don't know.

  • John||

    Yes Zeb, there is. It is all over Youtube. The media does its best to hide it but it gets noticed. The police unions and their supporters ensure of that.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    I don't know percentages because there hasn't been a poll, but there have been BLM protests where they chanted about 'frying pigs' and there have been BLM supporters caught on camera saying they'd like to see cops murdered or that they'd like to lynch white people.

    I don't know how widespread it is because every instance obviously blows up conservative media. It's very possible it's a small minority and it's just a loud minority because they tend to be the craziest people and conservatives give them a microphone by holding them up as examples of the BLM movement every time they crop up.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't know how widespread it is because every instance obviously blows up conservative media. It's very possible it's a small minority and it's just a loud minority because they tend to be the craziest people and conservatives give them a microphone by holding them up as examples of the BLM movement every time they crop up.

    You really think someone would do that?

  • Tony||

    don't know how widespread it is because every instance obviously blows up conservative media.

    Hence John's perspective on the narrative.

  • John||

    Yeah Tony it is called being sentient. And everyone knows the left doesn't give a fuck about police brutality. They never said shit for years. They only care now because they think it will get them power.

  • Tony||

    Being sentient is not equivalent to consuming only right-wing media. Quite the opposite.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    I assume being sentient means consuming only left-wing media then ? How then can you explain your lack of sentience ?

  • Jimbo||

    BLM? Is that teh Bureau of Land Management? Bank Loan Modification?(not that we'd ever let #BLM get a BLM, if you know what I mean), Black Mage?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    My take is that there is no "War on Cops". What there is, is a concerted effort to drive the perception of a Police Reform movement into extremism, at least in the public perception. The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive establishment desperately needs the Poor and Brown to feel oppressed, and that might be hard to arrange with restrained policing and cops and prosecutors getting punished when they overreach. They also need the cops to feel that the political establishment is their only friend, so that when it comes time to enforce blatantly unconstitutional regulations, the cops will geek. And at the same time, they can't really come out and be all Lawr 'n 'Owada; it would play merry hell with their narrative. So they make the reform movement all about Race, and encourage idiots to chant crap like "What do we want? Dead Cops!". And presto; no meaningful reform, and they look like friends to the Underdog!

  • Loki||

    Granted, maybe a given number of cops are killed in such fashion every year, and that we're simply hearing more about those cases this year.

    I suspect that may be the case based on the lack of a statistically significant increase in the number of cops killed. If there are more execution style cop murders, the number is so far down in the weeds as to be inseparable from the noise. Certainly not enough to justify the "war on cops" meme. But at this point I think any cop killing is going be used as "evidence" of this non-existent war on cops by cop unions and their political allies to stop anything from changing.

  • commodious spittoon||

    The murder of two NYPD officers earlier this year certainly was politically motivated. It's not clear to me that Goforth's was ideological rather than neurological. But to the extent police and their union reps want to play the victim, they need to be corrected. A "war on" anything doesn't look like crazies being crazies and everyone else peacefully (if emphatically) demanding reforms.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A war on cops would look like MRAP's driving up to their houses in the middle of the night and throngs of amped and armed men with battering rams and flashbang grenades holding their half-dressed wife and terrified children at gunpoint while shooting any pets in sight.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    That comment makes up for not being first.

  • Swiss Servator||

    Zing!

  • ||

    Zing indeed. I'm going to borrow that for use elsewhere, Fist.

  • ||

    A "war on" anything doesn't look like crazies being crazies and everyone else peacefully (if emphatically) demanding reforms.

    Well and as was pointed out above a private 'war on *something*' conducted by crazies (a.k.a. FUD) doesn't automatically justify (or necessarily have anything to do with) any given public response. A war on mailmen doesn't mean we automatically reinforce post offices and hire/train/arm more mailmen and throw larger pensions at them so they can retire early.

    Moreover, highly trained and armed men of the law were caught off guard or unprepared by people of distinctly lesser training, opportunity, and/or education/intelligence. Whatever the existing policy is, if there is a war, it's clearly not the right policy for addressing this issue.

  • Zeb||

    there are also elements actively encouraging people to shoot police officers as revenge for bad policing

    I don't see much reason to think that there are. There may be, but for the moment I will assume that these random cop murders are isolated events, likely inspired to some extent by the recent protests about police.

  • wareagle||

    when you find yourself using a phrase like "these random cop murders," it's difficult to say there is not a trend of some sort. Doesn't matter if it's a kookball like Farrakhan talking about killing whites and cops or the BLM folks with their frying bacon, we've had multiple incidents of late, just as incidents of cops assaulting citizens appear more numerous.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    when you find yourself using a phrase like "these random cop murders," it's difficult to say there is not a trend of some sort.

    Except we have no way of knowing if more cops have actually been murdered until stats are released so we can compare. A few cop murders becoming major news does not mean that there have actually been more of them.

  • Zeb||

    "Random" refers to the selection of victims more than the reason for the attack.

  • the other Jim||

    That seems like the key element to me. Obviously some cops die in the line of duty, fighting the criminals they're supposed to arrest. But this year there have been notable stories of cops dying by ambush when sitting in their squad car or just pulling someone over in a routine traffic stop, or when they're off duty. As I said upthread, maybe that happens every year and we just don't hear much about it. Or, maybe it's new this year. Probably a hard thing to quantify either way.

  • John||

    Time will tell. Hopefully that kind of thing will not start happening a lot. If it does, then the cops have a point and we have a real problem. If not, then the cops don't have a point.

  • wareagle||

    is it fair to ask if that's also the case re: citizens being killed - is it happening more often or do we just hear about it more? The latter plays in somewhat because damn near every confrontation between law enforcement and citizens winds up on national news, whether it's something like the GA story this week involving the wrong house or someone bent on suicide by cops.

    I guess before you can address a problem, you have to admit there is one that needs to be addressed.

  • ||

    just pulling someone over in a routine traffic stop

    I don't know what word you meant to use but, for several reasons, routine is not the right one.

  • the other Jim||

    What word would you have used? And are you referencing a particular incident?

  • the other Jim||

    For what it's worth, I was referring to the incident in Hattiesberg, MS this spring when a cop pulled over several people in a Cadillac SUV who shot him, and then shot a nearby cop who came to help. Googling the story now, I can't find any explanation for why the car was stopped in the first place, but it doesn't sound like the suspects were being sought for any prior criminal activity.

    In the absence of specifics, you might claim that they were pulled over for "driving while black," though it might be notable that the one of the cops killed was also black.

    Anyway, just wondering what you took issue with in my original post.

  • ||

    Maybe 'notable' is wrong, maybe 'ambush' is wrong. It just stood out to me as a very distinct difference from the other two 'officer behaving like any other citizen' examples.

    Civilians don't routinely stop each other in traffic and then shoot/get shot. When they do, it's notable because it isn't routine. If I stop you in traffic and walk up to your window with a gun on my hip, and you shoot me, I don't exactly call that an ambush on your part. If I here a firefight going on, walk into it and get shot, again, IDK that that's an ambush.

    Not that I'm defending these criminals by any means but it's not like these criminals were waiting in these officers' homes after hours or had dangled some sort of bait. All the attacks I've heard about sound distinctly less coordinated and more insane (i.e. less premeditated) than most suicide bombings.

    The officer here in IL, was dispatched to a suspicious activity call, got out of his car radioed that he was pursuing and was discovered dead. Maybe an ambush, maybe not, but I don't see anything suggesting it was war/terrorism type tactics and I *do* see indications that a policy of pursuing on foot might be amiss. If it needs addressed at all for the one homicide in Fox Lake in the last however many years.

  • the other Jim||

    OK, fair enough. I agree it's different when someone shoots a cop who pulled him over, however justified the stop or however innocuous the traffic violation, versus targeting an unsuspecting cop who never even saw the assailant coming. Probably not pre-meditated, so much as a massive overreaction/miscalculation, which may or may have not have some anti-cop bias involved. It's good not to generalize too much from these events.

  • ||

    when you find yourself using a phrase like "these random cop murders," it's difficult to say there is not a trend of some sort.

    Not implying any intent, there is a trend of publicizing/sensationalize them in the extreme.

  • Harold Falcon||

    And Shark Attacks are a real thing you should be scared of.

    Please, this is media bullshit and police taking an opportunity to try to gain more power against us.

  • Ron||

    CPADave agreed especially when you take into account a couple of the cop killers have flat out stated their purpose for killing the cops. But maybe Reason no longer includes facts into their articles

  • R C Dean||

    there are also elements actively encouraging people to shoot police officers as revenge for bad policing?

    Maybe. But I don't see them having any effect. Because the number of cops shot hasn't gone up.

  • Trump-o-Matic 5000||

    Yes, but now they have a scapegoat which allows them to institute even harsher policies

  • Trump-o-Matic 5000||

    I miss the days when you could be against all murder, whether it was done by cops or against cops.

  • Rasilio||

    Not without some data indicating a statistically significant increase in attacks on police officers.

    Elements have been "encouraging people to shoot police officers since at least the 1960's, where is the evidence that it is being acted on in any measurable way?

    Right now it is statistically safer to be a Police Officer in America than it is to be a civilian resident of almost any major US city and cops are only marginally more likely to be homicide victims than non cops (the murder rate for cops is ~7 per 100k, for civilians in the US it is ~5 per 100k)and that the death rate from violence for cops this year is right in line with other recent years it is basically impossible to argue that there is any war on cops ongoing.

    When the cop murder rate climbs to 10 or 15 per 100k we can start talking about a "war on cops"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    To do so is simply to wave away a decade-long decline in confidence in police that has everything to do with behavior by law enforcement, not the citizens they serve.

    I'm told by someone whose name escapes me that polls have consistently shown high levels of regard for our law enforcement professionals.

  • Swiss Servator||

    BOOYAH! WINNING!

  • John||

    No we are not having a conversation about police brutality. We need to have one and were starting to have one but then it got highjacked by the left and made into a bullshit conversation about racism.

    Fuck the Ferguson and Baltimore protesters and fuck Black Lives Matter. All they did was take what should have been a conversation about police brutality and turn it into a leftist shit show. Now, instead of a building consensus on the need to hold police more accountable, both sides have now hardened into "team law and order" and "team shoot the cops and let black criminals free". It is a sorry shame that everyone who cares about this issue should lament.

  • Pablo_||

    Yup. They ought to call it "Leave Our Violent Felons Alone!"

  • dantheserene||

    Which side are you referring to? Or did you mean that both sides could use it?

  • Harold Falcon||

    Was about to post something similar. Exactly right.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Meh, if the two groups of thugs spend all their time killing each other hopefully it is less time for the two groups to kill non-combatants.

  • Zeb||

    The relations between police and black people is definitely part of what needs to be discussed, but I agree that making it all about race and typical leftist grievances and not about police brutality and criminal justice reform in general is just terrible and counterproductive.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    That's because progressives can't take the logical step that their socialist utopia with vast rules and laws requires thugs to enforce their will. How many proggies recognized their role in Eric gardeners death ? They pass law after law raising the price of tobacco, as a result he sold them tax free on the street. To stop this gross violation of progressive law, the police killed Gardner.

  • Drake||

    They really did poison the well. You can't have a calm conversation with either side now.

  • Tony||

    There wouldn't be a conversation at all without BLM. Stop watching Bill O'Reilly so much.

  • Zeb||

    That may be true, but by insisting that it is only about black lives they are missing a big part of what needs to be talked about.

  • Tony||

    Don't you worry, there will never be a day in which blacks reap the rewards of police reform before whites reap a whole lot more of them.

  • Zeb||

    Fuck off.

  • Harold Falcon||

    Dipshit.

  • Cyto||

    Wow, that's really dumb. You personally posted on dozens upon dozens of Balko nut-punch articles many years before BLM existed. Supposing a single entity called Tony, that is.

    There is definitely a solid argument to be made that the focus on Ferguson and race has blocked a serious conversation on policing, rather than propelling that discussion forward.

    When you have a large number of Kelly Thomas style indefensible killings and beatings of unarmed and unthreatening people, the focus on a case that is at least arguably self-defense is a distraction. If anyone really wanted to have a serious conversation, Thomas would be the poster boy and his screams of "Daddy, help me!" would be the rallying cry, rather than "Hands up, don't shoot."

    I will concede that it is possible that a high-visibility conversation that is taken in a tangential and unproductive direction is still potentially more beneficial than a low-visibility conversation about the truly relevant issues. But that still doesn't even plausibly reach the level of "there wouldn't be a conversation at all without BLM".

  • Tony||

    The conversation was confined to places like this. I've never in my life seen a pushback against police abuse in the mainstream political/media conversation like we have today. It is entirely thanks to years-long efforts by black activists and their allies in the wake of recent specific incidents, and, you know, you could just try not being a dick about that fact for no goddamn reason.

    One thing that's for sure to impede the conversation is a bunch of white libertarians and conservatives bitching about the fact that race is mentioned. Why didn't you try being a little less feckless in all your years of trying to make this a mainstream conversation, instead of bitching about what black people are doing?

  • TJ_ExMachina||

    There isn't a conversation about police abuse now, there's one about racism. That's the point. How well do those go? Whatever conversation could and should about the acutal problem has been had is lost in a shit flinging contest.

  • Tony||

    The conversation is about both because they are completely intertwined. White America would never have allowed police abuse to get so bad if they didn't sort of tacitly condone it as a means of clearing out the undesirables.

  • ||

    I'm confused - you're white, right? Do you consider yourself part of "White America?" As such, in your opinion, did *you* "allow police abuse to get so bad . . . as a means of clearing out the undesirables?"

  • Tony||

    I was quite likely more blind to the problem than I would have been if I were black.

  • ||

    "I was quite likely more blind to the problem than I would have been if I were black."

    That is not what you said. You did not say that white people noticed the problem less. You said that white people *caused" the problem because they wanted to "clear out undesirables."

    You are arguing intentional white complacency in empowering police to brutally cleanse the nation of undesirable elements in the population. I am asking you why you feel that you are exempt from this sweeping moral condemnation of white people.

  • Tony||

    We can make such generalizations because the reality is that merely being born white gives you the advantages that being born black doesn't, in this context.

  • ||

    Well-recited talking point.

    The question was, you paint "whites" with an aggressively bad moral brush, suggesting that police violence against blacks is a problem created by whites in order to get rid of the black population.

    To what extent do you include yourself in that? If less than others, why?

  • ||

    "The conversation was confined to places like this. I've never in my life seen a pushback against police abuse in the mainstream political/media conversation like we have today. It is entirely thanks to years-long efforts by black activists"

    You didn't even finish the next sentence before contradicting yourself.

    Sure, people *here* have been talking about this for eons, but liberals didn't take notice until the BLM movement, therefore *no one* paid attention to this before BLM and it is *entirely* due to the years-long efforts by black activists.

    Don't you suppose that finding common cause may actually be a way to start resolving some of the racial issues in this country?

    But you seem less interested in that, somehow . . .

  • the other Jim||

    Yup, you're right. The media doesn't pay much attention when it's some white guy who gets killed by trigger happy cops, or some white family's golden retriever that gets summarily executed when it comes to meet Officer Friendly at the front door.

  • croaker||

    Or when a Mayor gets both his dogs shot and he gets proned out just for taking a box off his porch.

  • Pulseguy||

    I don't see that, Tony. The narrative has been happening, especially on Reason for some time now. I think BLM are jumping in on a bandwagon, and poisoning the well, as was stated above.

  • R C Dean||

    We need to have one and were starting to have one but then it got highjacked by the left and made into a bullshit conversation about racism.

    Repeated for emphasis.

  • Trump-o-Matic 5000||

    Completely agree. Police brutality, lack of accountability, and the erosion of civil liberties as a result of the drug war are serious issues that affect everyone. It's undeniable that it affects blacks in greater numbers, but it's an issue everyone should be concerned about.

    The progtard leftists, however, see everything in terms of racial division. Rather than trying to build consensus with libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives, they made it another diatribe about how all whites are racist and responsible for this.

    Now it's another deadlocked issue that's completely lost focus and has polarized both sides.

    The result, naturally, will be similar to the status quo ante, but with more of our rights taken away.

  • crazyfingers||

    The left isn't interested in holding police accountable or limiting their powers because they are afraid that distrust might bleed over into other government agencies.

  • wareagle||

    it's actually possible to say the murder of this deputy was just as wrong as the Kelly Thomas killing was. This is not a zero-sum game.

  • Teaching Student||

    Exactly. It's so frustrating how everything is devolving into us vs them black and white. There is such thing as a no good guy situation.

  • Harold Falcon||

    The fact that no good cops exist is proven by the fact that bad cops exist.

  • ||

    Then by your logic there are no good anything.

    No good plumbers, no good mechanics, no good Reason posters.

    I am disapoint.

  • Number.6||

    In fairness to mechanics and plumbers, they'll often criticize other mechanics and plumbers who are lousy at their jobs, and won't try and cover up their malfeasance.

    Cops .... not so much.

  • adifferentken||

    Stopping and arresting people who commit crimes is part of an officers job, so, if they look the other way and or cover up for other officers they are not only morally wrong but failing to do their jobs.
    Mechanics and plumbers aren't, as a condition of their jobs, supposed to protect you from bad mechanics and plumbers.

  • BackinIndy||

    Agreed. The fact that any good cops who call out the bad ones are normally fired proves this point. I used to go with the "few bad apples" theory, but a little research proves that this is no longer the case. The whole barrel has gone bad.

  • sarcasmic||

    Let's say for a minute that there really is a war on cops. The question of course would be why. Could it be because of unjust laws that are zealously enforced by thugs who operate without any accountability? No. Couldn't be that. Could it be because the of the media? Yeah, that's it. Must be the media. It certainly can't be because of the cops themselves. Might as well say that 9/11 was an act of retaliation against the actions of the federal government around the world. That's blasphemy.

  • wareagle||

    it's not either/or. Not every cop is a thug waiting to shoot you and not every wary citizen is looking for an excuse to shoot some officer.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes, but the sad fact is that with very few exceptions, cops will always back up their fellow thugs when they engage in illegal behavior. Because next time it could be them.

  • wareagle||

    agencies do not help themselves, which is one reason SC looked out of place when a cop who killed a man was charged with murder. In NC, there was a trial that ended about a week ago; the officer was acquitted, no riots followed. A judge this week upheld charges against the Baltimore cops from this year's incident.

    Maybe I can cite those because they are exceptions, maybe departments and jurisdictions are taking steps to address this. My objections is the binary hypothesis behind Nick's argument. And his poll findings ignore something a Pew study found - public confidence in ALL institutions is down, to include cops, govt, education, and the business community.

  • ||

    Yeah. Police abuse shouldn't mean some good cop gets offed.

  • sarcasmic||

    Good cops like the ones who turn in bad cops who abuse their power and otherwise engage in illegal behavior? Those good cops? Oh yeah. Those good cops don't exist.

  • thom||

    The work itself has turned evil. Routinely assisting in the complete destruction of people's lives is literally part of the job description. A "routine" arrest for possession, or worse, failure to show the proper respect? That's complete devastation, at least in the short run, to that persons life. Good people don't do evil things. Previously good people who choose to do evil are no longer good people.

  • ||

    ^ This. The job itself is structured terribly to force people in it to engage in all kinds of immoral behavior. Given that the average guy that goes into that profession is, well, pretty average, I think they lose their moral compass pretty quickly.

  • Zeb||

    I also have my doubts as to the existence of what I would call a "good cop". But crooked cops don't deserve to get shot either if they aren't threatening you.
    At least wait until they are arresting you for drugs or some other non-crime, then you have some kind of self defense claim (morally if not legally).

  • Copernicus would chip||

    It's just so hard to feel much sympathy for a cop who gets killed when the Blue Boys consistently and with great solidarity don't give a flying fuck about the people they murder.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's just so hard to feel much sympathy for a cop who gets killed when the Blue Boys consistently and with great solidarity don't give a flying fuck about the people they murder.

    x 1000

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Sad but true....

  • croaker||

    Which is why I want the disciplinary record of every cop that dies released. The unions want to claim victimhood, I say "prove it."

    Either that or stop releasing the criminal record of every person a cop kills as justification for the death.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The increasingly bad image of police around the country is their fault and nobody else's."

    You can also credit the proliferation of cameras particularly in regards to cell phones.

    Before everybody started taking video of whatever struck their fancy, brutality claims mostly boiled down to: "Who are you gonna believe--the good men in blue or the scumbag they had to subdue?"

    With citizen video these days, the question is now: "Who are you gonna believe--the police report or your own lying eyes"?

  • Drake||

    Yes - and the traffic revenuers.

    The only interaction most people have with cops is when they try to extract revenue for traffic stops. Too many people have met a lying, bullying, asshole cop who is willing to fabricate an offense for revenue.

    Then they go home and see asshole cops beating and shooting people for no particular reason in the news and make the connection - most cops are assholes and all are willing to defend the asshole cops from consequences.

    Strangely, the cops then wonder why nobody likes them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The last time a cop pulled me over, he walks up to my window and says, "Do you know how fast you were going?"

    I said, "I was going as fast as I could".

    He started laughing. Let me off with a warning.

    Two or three miles east, down Rosecrans, the cops don't treat black people like that in El Segundo or Hawthorne.

    That's real. We were talking about TV perceptions the other day, and how the influence people's perceptions of their own economic status. People see guys like the one on "The King of Queens" working as a UPS driver and able to afford a million dollar house (and a smokin' wife), and it makes them feel like they're being cheated by the economy somehow.

    I lived and worked on the edge of South Central LA before and after the riots. I know how the police treated the locals. It's no wonder if the people of Inglewood and Compton watch the same TV I do and see all these cop shows with cops being heroes, doing their best to defend freedom, justice, and the American way. Maybe they watch old episodes of Law & Order and think to themselves, "How come the rest of America sees the police and the justice system this way--when every time I interact with the police, I get treated like shit?"

  • Crusty Juggler||

    As though Daryl Gates had anything to do with the riots, and that same mentality could possibly influence public perception as it has spread across the country for the past twenty years.

    Just donate to your local PBA and deal with it, civilian.

  • Swiss Servator||

    I always did get a little joy when I got call the cops the "civilian police" or "civilian authorities" to their faces, when I was in the Guard.

  • Drake||

    I've had cool cops like that - and a real asshole who accused me of reckless driving and an illegal turn - all bullshit. Then he wrote me a ticket for different made up shit that didn't involve points because he knew I'd pay it instead of court. Race didn't have a thing to do with it.

  • Another Phil||

    Just the other day, I was pulled over on my motorcycle for exiting the HOV lane at the wrong place. Motorcycles are allowed in the HOV lane. Go figure. I actually did exit where I shouldn't have. So, legitimate traffic stop, so far. I was compliant and polite to the cop. He gave me four tickets. Three of the were basically different ways of describing the illegal lane change. The fourth was for having headphones on (a bullshit charge, but legally defensible). Luckily, I know a bunch of attorneys, one of whom specializes in traffic court disputes. I think he'll be able to do some negotiation, but this is still going to cost me a crazy amount of money (it's NY). I'm a middle-aged white guy.

  • Restoras||

    OT: Judge nullifies Brady suspension

    http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/20.....eflategate

    Suck it, haters!

  • John||

    In a fight between Roger Godell and Tom Brady, it is impossible not to be happy about someone losing. This is probably the best result. Godell gets humiliated but is still the commissioner. I wish New England luck with that. I am sure the referees are going to keep it totally fair in the playoffs this year. No doubt.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So I guess that means Brady is the new protected class?

    I hope he doesn't go all Aaron Hernandez now.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I mean, just because he cheated like a motherfucker doesn't mean he should be sanctioned by the sport. You have to ask his union for permission to discipline him for cheating--everybody in Boston knows that.

  • Restoras||

    Eh, I dunno - I get the feeling (just a feeling...) that Brady/Patriots aren't the only ones that has played games with the rules. Not that there shouldn't be punishment for it but if everyone is doing it (ala, the world of cycling) what's the sense in dishing out punishment for what is, in my mind, a clear oversight on the part of the league? If the psi of a football is so important to the outcome of the game, that should be tightly controlled by the league. It clearly wasn't, and therefore clearly isn't.

  • wareagle||

    the Patriots have cultivated this reputation of playing outside the rules habitually.

  • Restoras||

    Playing outside, or just bending the rules? Granted, perhaps to the breaking point but if you get a W what difference does it make? The point is to win and an advantage is an advantage. I'm sure it goes on everywhere else. Just saying.

  • John||

    The problem the Patriots have is that they are such assholes about it. Contrast how people feel about the Patriots with the old Madden Raiders. The Raiders took pride in cheating yet people did and still love them. The Patriots in contrast are hated. The reason I think is the smarmy dishonesty of how they go about it. It is one thing to cheat. It is quite another thing to lie about doing it and then act like you are a victim when you are caught. That more than anything is why people hate the Patriots so much.

    If Brady had just come out and said "yeah I told them to deflate the balls" or "I didn't tell them to do it but it is my responsibility that they did", a lot more people would be on his side. Instead, he lied and acted the victim and basically told the entire world they were stupid and would believe anything he said.

  • Drake||

    Did the league ever even try to replicate the condition of the game? Inflate the balls in a 70 degree room - then expose them to 35 degree rain? No.

    Did they even use the same gauge before and after the game - no.

    Their investigation was a fucking joke. For a minor offense if it was ever real.

  • John||

    The problem wasn't the offense Drake. It was the Patriots telling the league and Goodell to go fuck themselves and not cooperating. Again, right or wrong, in the long run the league is always going to win. The Patriots and maybe Brady are likely going to rue the day they won this.

  • Drake||

    How did he not cooperate - other than not letting them finger-fuck his phone and make every text he ever sent public? They had to settle for emails instead to try to embarrass him.

  • John||

    They lied and tried to blame their employees. They tried to claim it was the weather. They made a farce out of the entire thing. It is one thing for a player to lie. It is quite another for an entire organization to bald face lie to the league and that is what the Patriots did. They tried to claim the guy who called himself "the deflator" who mysteriously took the balls into the bathroom with him for several minutes didn't tamper with the balls or if he did did so on his own and without their knowledge.

  • Drake||

    "tried to blame the weather"

    Did the league ever try to explain how cold weather wouldn't make the pressure go down? Do I just imagine it when the pressure in my tires goes down when the weather gets cold?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsXFX3tDpg

  • Ken Shultz||

    Raiders "cheating" was about getting in a hard hit. Maybe hitting somebody both illegally and so hard you knocked him out of the game.

    And there's a difference between strategically taking a penalty for an illegal hit--and cheating outright and expecting not to be penalized for that!

    You want to chop block somebody and take a penalty for that, then that's part of the game. It's in the rules. You can chop block people, you can hit 'em in the head, you can do anything you want--even if there's a rule against it and a penalty for it.

    What you can't do is break the rules--and refuse to take any penalty. That's bullshit.

    Oh, and when Lester Hayes was using Stickum? It wasn't cheating. Stickum was legal then! Lester Hayes is why they made a rule against it, and as soon as they did 1) he stopped using it and 2) if he'd kept using it, he should have accepted the penalty.

  • John||

    Ken,

    They did more than that. They had a guy on the staff who specialized in casts. Every Raider offensive lineman spent the entire season in come kind of hand cast, which this guy then made into a virtual weapon. They did all kinds of things.

    You are right though, when they were caught they took their punishment. The Patriots get caught and act like whinny bitches and pretend to be the victim. That is why people hate them.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The Patriots get caught and act like whinny bitches and pretend to be the victim. That is why people hate them."

    Evel Knievel had a former publicist who wrote a tell all book about him. The publisher insisted that the publicist send a copy to Knievel for comment before publication. In the book, the publicist falsely accused Knievel of being a drug addict (to pain medication) and also of being a wife beater and abusing his kids.

    This from a man whom Evel Knievel had trusted to protect his public image.

    Did Knievel go on Oprah and Larry King and fight for his reputation in the court of public opinion?

    No.

    Did Knievel go and get a lawyer?

    No.

    Evel Knievel went and got a baseball bat, went to the guy's office, and beat the shit out of him with it.

    When he was indicted for felonious assault, the judge asked him how he plead, and he plead guilty. The judge released him on his own recognizance and the press was waiting for him as he emerged from court. A reporter asked him why he plead guilty, and Knievel responded, "Because I did it".

    We live in an amazingly free society. You can beat the shit out of somebody with a baseball bat if you want to! ...but you have to face the consequences.

    The Patriots want freedom without responsibility. Their fans should be ashamed of them.

    I'm not sure Evel Knievel had anything to be ashamed of.

  • Drake||

    Yes - they explicitly put the penalty into the collective bargaining agreement as $5k.

    They never named a penalty for under-inflating balls (an offense which has the same purpose - better grip).

  • The Shrubber's Woodchipper||

    'If you're not cheating, you're not trying'

    --Al Davis

  • Ken Shultz||

    'If you're not cheating, you're not trying'

    So the NFL shouldn't bust players for cheating?!

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Nope, and not only that but they shouldn't complain when they are equated to professional wrestling.

  • John||

    And the other thing Restoras is that you can't fight city hall. Eventually the league is going to win. They didn't win here but this has become personal and a matter of league credibility. It won't happen immediately but at some point the league will get its revenge. That shouldn't bother Brady since he might be retired by then, but it ought to bother Kraft and Belichek.

    Moreover, after this the Patriots' sense of invulnerability and arrogance has to be in the stratosphere. That kind of attitude usually doesn't end well for people.

  • Drake||

    As far as I can tell they have still stripped the Patriots of next year's first round pick. That's a pretty big hurt.

    But the league isn't city hall, it's a business partnership. Last time the owners tried to get rid of Goodell, Kraft saved his ass. Next time, Kraft will put the knife in him.

  • John||

    The other owners don't like Kraft either. And it is not really even about the Patriots per say. Now it is about the league's ability to discipline its players. Thanks to this decision, the league doesn't have near the leeway it did before. I am sure the other owners are pissed at both Kraft and Goodell for creating this entire shit show.

    It may cost Godell his job but that doesn't mean the other owners have any use for Kraft. And don't think for a moment the refs don't do the league's bidding. I would be shocked if the Patriots get anything close to a fairly called game this year.

  • Drake||

    Bullshit. The Judge blasted they league because they didn't do a proper investigation, held the disciplinary hearing in an unfair manner, had no basis for the punishment, then imposed a massively disproportional punishment.

    The NFL, just like college rape cases, needs to get its act together and develop proper procedures for investigation and discipline rather than just dishing out arbitrary penalties for high-profile allegations.

  • John||

    Drake,

    The league has no interest in giving its employees due process. They are Tom Brady's boss. Why do they owe him due process? And yes, that is what hte judge said and that is the problem. The league has no interest in "getting its act together" and giving players due process. And they are not happy over any precedent that says they have to.

    Not only is the league going to totally fuck the Patriots over the next few years, they are going to make a fortune doing it. The Patriots are set up to be the most hated ticket selling team maybe in sports history. Can you imagine what the ratings for the opening night in Pittsburgh are going to be? And when the playoffs come around every game the Patriots play will be an epic battle between good and evil. They are going to make a fortune off of this.

  • Drake||

    They owe him due process because it is written into the collective bargaining agreement.

  • John||

    No it is not. I honestly don't know where the judge got that. The CBA is totally slanted towards the owners. It gives Godell the discretion to do whatever the hell he wants.

  • Drake||

    The NFL (not Brady) filed in that court.

    ...the Brady case only went in front of Judge Berman because the NFL directed that it be. Fearful of the NFLPA returning to seek redress in Judge Doty’s court in Minnesota—which it tried (unsuccessfully) to do—the NFL preemptively filed in the Southern District of New York, whereupon the case landed at the feet of Judge Berman. NFL lawyers had to be feeling a bit smug in foreclosing the union from their desired appellate jurisdiction by preemptively filing in New York, where the vast majority of arbitration awards involving employer groups (as the NFL is) and employee groups (as the NFLPA is) had been upheld. The NFL's loss in front of Judge Berman, is the ultimate “careful what you wish for” moment in sports law annals.

    http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/0.....dge-berman

  • Ken Shultz||

    "They owe him due process because it is written into the collective bargaining agreement."

    If they owe him due process, it's due process they owe him before they punish him for his cheating.

    How you get there and where you're going may be two different questions, but whether he's guilty isn't really an open question.

    If they didn't dot an "i", that doesn't mean Tom wasn't in on it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I get the feeling (just a feeling...) that Brady/Patriots aren't the only ones that has played games with the rules."

    Because other people have gotten away with murder is no reason to let Aaron Hernandez get away with murder.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, but it's not murder, it's a stupid game.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    it's a stupid game

    I literally can't.

  • Ken Shultz||

    This was a response to the suggestion that Brady shouldn't be penalized for cheating because other people have gotten away with cheating.

    "Eh, I dunno - I get the feeling (just a feeling...) that Brady/Patriots aren't the only ones that has played games with the rules."

    So fucking what, amirite?

  • Restoras||

    So fucking what, amirite?

    Jesus Christ, dude. Yeah, you're right, there's just no proof outside of circumstantial evidence, hearsay and he-said, she-said. Are we cool now? Will you please walk the fuck back from the fucking ledge? I mean Holy Shit, who gives a royal fuck?

  • Restoras||

    Uh, yeah, except that we aren't talking about murder, and no one is suggesting that Aaron Hernandez be allowed to get away with it, or, for that matter, Brady and the Patriots.

    There doesn't seem to be incontrovertible, irrefutable proof or evidence that Brady or the Patriots deliberately cheated. Lots of circumstantial evidence, maybe, but that doesn't hold up.

    If having a football inflated to a precise psi is crucial to the outcome of a game, why does the league not control it tightly? It looks

    It really seems to me this is driven more by jealousy of the Patriots success, and embarrassment on the part of the league, than anything else.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Uh, yeah, except that we aren't talking about murder

    No, we're talking about your bullshit about how since everyone else (supposedly) is getting away with something--Brady should get away with it, too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "There doesn't seem to be incontrovertible, irrefutable proof or evidence that Brady or the Patriots deliberately cheated. Lots of circumstantial evidence, maybe, but that doesn't hold up."

    See my post below with the actual text messages.

    Just because they say they're deflating balls for Tom doesn't necessarily mean they're deflating balls for Tom?

    No, no, there must be some other explanation, and whatever the other explanation is? We should assume that's the explanation--for some reason!

    Just because there's a dead man dying on the floor and I'm holding a smoking gun doesn't mean I'm the one who shot him? Maybe there's another explanation somehow--and we should all assume that's the truth because otherwise?

    Otherwise, I might have to face the consequences--and we can't have that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I've long argued that my dear Redskins should be renamed either the Confederate Rebels or The Sadness Machine--because all they've done since 1991 is make people sad.

    The Patriots should rename themselves "The Cheating Machine"--for similar reasons!

  • Restoras||

    Back. Away. From. The. Ledge.

    Allow me to rephrase.

    Just because others are/were/perhaps were also doing the same thing does not mean Brady and the Patriots should be allowed to get away with it.

    However, lacking incontrovertible, irrefutable proof/evidence of alleged 'crimes' this outcome is just.

    In the future, if properly and precisely inflated footballs are so crucial to the outcome of a game, the league should be solely responsible for the footballs used in all games. Any tampering with a football - psi related or otherwise - results in a 15 yard penalty and a game misconduct for the tamperer.

    If, however, properly and precisely inflated footballs are not crucial to the outcome of a game, then by all means, I encourage the league to continue behaving like complete jackasses.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "However, lacking incontrovertible, irrefutable proof/evidence of alleged 'crimes' this outcome is just."

    Um...no.

    You don't even need incontrovertible, irrefutable proof to convict someone of murder. It just needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    And this isn't a criminal case. In civil court, you don't even need proof beyond a reasonable doubt--you just need to win by a preponderance of the evidence.

    And whether Tom cheated isn't even a court matter. They're talking about the procedures in the union contract. The NFL can use whatever standard they like--so long as the contracts are voluntary and it's a private organization. We can throw you out of our country club for wearing socks that don't match, and this is as it should be.

  • Restoras||

    Ok, bro. Enjoy whatever team you like to watch this year.

  • Ken Shultz||

    My favorite team creates nothing but sadness.

    I'm hoping to watch a repeat of the 2007 season and Super Bowl XLII, when Belichick used the Spygate scandal to rally his team and run up the score on everyone during the regular season--only to lose spectacularly in the Superbowl.

  • Drake||

    Here's the decision:
    http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2015/.....Ruling.pdf

    Have fun. The Judge's notes are funny.

    "Generally aware" I am not sure I understand what in the world that means, that phrase...

  • Drake||

    The best that Goodell's own completely biased investigation could come up with a big "maybe". Then, for an offense on the same level as using stick-em (a $5k fine for first offenders), he suspends Brady for a quarter of the season and takes a first round pick?

    Goodell is out of his mind.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Brady cheated in the Superbowl.

  • Drake||

    You know you sound like a whiny loser?

    To quote Restoras: "Suck it, haters!"

  • Ken Shultz||

    So you're not even going to deny that he cheated in the Superbowl?

  • Drake||

    I don't know wtf you are talking about.

    I saw a bunch of officials on that field who called penalties whenever they noticed a player "cheating".

  • Drake||

    I don't know wtf you are talking about.

    I saw a bunch of officials on that field who called penalties whenever they noticed a player "cheating".

  • Ken Shultz||

    "In several texts between Jastremski and McNally, the two mention and joke about inflation, deflation, needles, and gifts from Tom Brady to McNally. Tom Brady was a constant reference point in these discussions. McNally referred to himself as "the deflator" in a text message to Jastremski as far back as May 2014.[20]:75"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflategate #Wells_Report

  • Ken Shultz||

    The following morning, Friday October 17, 2014, McNally and Jastremski
    exchanged the following text messages:
    Date and Time Sender Recipient Message
    10/17/201449
    09:05:45 EDT
    Bird
    (603) 321-xxxx
    John Jastremski
    (508) 958-xxxx
    Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a fuckin
    balloon
    10/17/2014
    09:07:08 EDT
    John Jastremski
    (508) 958-xxxx
    Bird
    (603) 321-xxxx
    Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up
    and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get
    them done...
    10/17/2014
    09:07:37 EDT
    John Jastremski
    (508) 958-xxxx
    Bird
    (603) 321-xxxx
    I told him it was. He was right though...
    10/17/2014
    09:08:07 EDT
    John Jastremski
    (508) 958-xxxx
    Bird
    (603) 321-xxxx
    I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs
    fucked us...a few of then were at almost 16

    Date and Time Sender Recipient Message
    10/17/2014
    09:08:29 EDT
    John Jastremski
    (508) 958-xxxx
    Bird
    (603) 321-xxxx
    They didnt recheck then after they put air in them
    10/17/2014
    09:16:31 EDT
    Bird
    (603) 321-xxxx
    John Jastremski
    (508) 958-xxxx
    Fuck tom ...16 is nothing...wait till next sunday
    10/17/2014
    09:16:52 EDT
    John Jastremski
    (508) 958-xxxx
    Bird
    (603) 321-xxxx
    Omg! Spaz

    Start with page 76 of the report right here:

    http://tinyurl.com/orckgud

  • Drake||

    What does that have to do with the Superbowl? Seriously.

  • Restoras||

    What does that have to do with the Superbowl? Seriously.

    Everything...when you are BLINDED BY HATE!!!! HAHAHAHA suck it haters!

  • Ken Shultz||

    What does cheating to get into the Superbowl have to do with the Superbowl--are you serious?!

    That's fucking asinine.

  • Restoras||

    Aside from the texts you cite as proof that Brady cheated in the Superbowl are from October 17, 2014?

  • Drake||

    The haters are pretty funny.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, well, obviously, just because the same people who deflated balls on other occasions were involved with the balls that were deflated in the AFC championship game--doesn't necessarily mean they were deflated by the same people for the same reasons!

    It could have been somebody else!

    Is that what I'm supposed to say?

    The only reason anyone would think that is because they're unreasonably obsessed with exonerating the Patriots. The purpose of the NFL cheating probes is not to exonerate the Patriots from wrongdoing. This is not innocent until proven guilty.

    The fuckers are guilty of doing the same thing for the same reasons in lesser games. Only a shithead would think that balls under the control of the same Patriots' staff being deflated in more important games might be done by someone else or for other reasons.

    They systematically deflated balls because Tom Brady wanted them to--we know that from the texts. We also know that the balls used by the Patriots in the AFC championship game were deflated. How fucking Irish do you have to be not to put two and two together?

    And the stupid thing is? The judge and the lawyers aren't even disputing the fact that the balls were deflated at Tom's request. They're just arguing that the way Tom was treated in this case wasn't consistent with the NFL Players' Association union contract with the league! You're out there on a weird limb all by yourself. Well, you and a bunch of other willfully obtuse Patriots' fans.

  • Restoras||

    Cool story, bro.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's a true story, too!

  • Restoras||

    It's got made-for-tv written all over it! I hope Matt Damon gets cast as Tom Brady.

  • grrizzly||

    Ken doesn't make any sense. Too much whining.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Actually, I just thought you were smart enough that you didn't need everything spelled out for you.

    Explaining this obvious stuff to you guys is like trying to explain basic economics to Tony.

  • Restoras||

    Explaining this obvious stuff to you guys is like trying to explain basic economics to Tony.

    You go to far, sir!

  • Swiss Servator||

    That is like a "call out for a duel" type insult!

  • ||

    What did he do ?

  • R C Dean||

    There's little reason to doubt that Brady & Co. engaged in a coverup. That alone justifies a private organization imposing sanctions on him.

  • Pablo_||

    While there is unquestionably fault on the side of LEO's and excessive use of force, the notion that the current climate is all their fault is ridiculous. The present furor started with the Ferguson "Hands up, Don't shoot lie" and has glommed onto every gun toting, wannabe cop killing felon who has met his inevitable end since then. Dropping a thug who's shooting at you is a public service and should be commended.

  • John||

    Exactly that. The problem with Nick's contention is that the cop was right in Ferguson. The outrage over that was manufactured bullshit.

  • R C Dean||

    The problem with Nick's contention is that the cop was right in Ferguson.

    At the moment he pulled the trigger, probably.

    Before (when he hassled the two guys for walking down the street without knowing about the robbery) and after (when he lied, repeatedly, about what had happened), not so much.

  • SugarFree||

    And the ludicrous performance at the grand jury that let him off.

  • John||

    Seriously, you can't honestly think he didn't have a right to shoot the guy? What was he supposed to do, let Brown grab his gun and kill him? Let Brown just beat him senseless? Fuck Brown. You go out and attack a cop, you can't complain when the cop shoots you. It is not about the guy being a cop. If Brown had attacked someone else, he would have gotten exactly what he deserve. Brown was a piece of shit who spent his entire life going around fucking with people. It was just a matter of time before he finally fucked with someone with a gun and wound up dead. It just happened to be a cop who did it but someone was going to eventually.

  • SugarFree||

    The testimony of the cop changed at least three times (and still managed to be nigh incoherent) and the grand jury was an absolute farce, but you don't like the people who objected to his death, so it must be a good shoot.

  • John||

    So what? I have yet to see a shred of evidence that Brown was anything but in the wrong. As far as his testimony changing, how did it change? The fact that the testimony changed doesn't mean he was lying. Sometimes people do make mistakes. Moreover, even if he were, that doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty.

    Come on Sugar Free, if some cop lover were on here using the logic you are about someone charged with a crime, you would never buy it. Don't treat a cop any differently than you would anyone else charged with a crime. To do otherwise is to be just as bad as the people who let any cop off.

  • John||

    Yeah, he just picked two guys at random and just happened to get a guy who had just robbed a store. Come on RC. I know you don't get out much but give me a fucking break. He didn't just pick two random guys. And even if he did, he didn't do a damn thing to justify Brown attacking him. Brown was a fucking violent moron who got exactly what he deserved.

    Stop discrediting the dozens of actual instances of police misconduct by pretending the Ferguson case was anything other than what it was. When you try and spin cases where the cop was obviously right and the guy he shot obviously had it coming, you do nothing but hurt the credibility of people who are real victims of police brutality and make everyone who speaks on their behalf look like cop haters.

  • ||

    "just happened to get a guy who had just robbed a store"

    Robbed is a strong word, intentionally inflated to "strong-arm robbery" by the media to make it sound like "armed robbery." Maybe I'm sheltered, but I had never heard the term "strong-arm robbery" prior to Michael Brown. I had always heard that kind of thing described as "shoplifting."

    "Brown was a fucking violent moron who got exactly what he deserved."

    And this is the result of the inflated terminology.

    IMO, this is exactly why Michael Brown, and *not* a less ambiguous case became the focal point. It is *precisely* because white people and black people look at the same set of facts and come to opposite conclusions.

    You ask above, what was Wilson supposed to do, just let Brown kill him? I think a black person would ask the same question from Brown's perspective. Was Brown an innocent babe? Resoundingly no. Was he dangerous? Potentially yes.

    To any black teenager walking down the street is a cop potentially dangerous? Absolutely. Is any interaction with a cop potentially going to be lethal even for a minor or non-existent offense? Yes.

    Once the cop started showing hostility and an itchy trigger finger, what sort of decision making process do you suppose started in Brown's mind?

    This is not to say there was a good guy and a bad guy there. Those are exactly the situations that become the most controversial - difficult ones that don't have clear right answers.

  • John||

    No. There was a bad guy. Brown. And robbery is robbery. Going in and treating to beat someone up and taking their money is still robbery and in my opinion just as bad as doing it with a gun.

    And there is not a single bit of evidence that the cop did anything that would justified Brown attacking him. You can't seriously claim that any black person who sees a cop has a right to then attack the cop because the cop had an itchy trigger finger. You want to apply that standard? Then fine, lets apply that standard to young black men. They commit a hugely disproportionate percentage of violent crimes in this society. By your way of thinking any white person is justified in just shooting a young black man at the slightest hint of a threat. I really don't think you want that standard. i sure don't.

    The bottom line is Brown deserved to get his head blown off in the store robbery. Had the clerk been armed and killed him, I would have been totally fine with it. Brown was the aggressor. And when you are the aggressor, you can't complain when the person you are trying to victimize defends themselves.

  • John||

    The Brown case was chosen because it was so clear. They knew that no reasonable person was going to side with Brown but at the same time that the black community, often for good reason, isn't reasonable looking at these cases. This ensured that the case would divide along racial lines. And racial division was the whole point. The protesters in Ferguson could give a fuck less about police brutality. For them it was all about racial division and the power that comes with it.

  • ||

    "You can't seriously claim that any black person who sees a cop has a right to then attack the cop because the cop had an itchy trigger finger."

    And I didn't.

    "By your way of thinking any white person is justified in just shooting a young black man at the slightest hint of a threat."

    Change "white person" to "cop" and this is the situation as it currently is and has been for a long time.

    My sole point: the situation is *not* black and white, no pun intended, and *that* is why it is controversial. It is not because "the black community isn't reasonable."

  • Pablo_||

    Shoplifting doesn't include assaulting store personnel. That's where the strong arm robbery comes in.

  • ||

    Yes, I understand that. What I said was that I have never in my life heard that term before.

    My point: "robbery" and "assault" are very, very strong terms for what Brown actually did.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "My point: "robbery" and "assault" are very, very strong terms for what Brown actually did."

    Then you do not have a point as they are completely accurate terms of art for what Brown did.

  • ||

    Telling two people who are waking down the middle of a street to get out of the street is hasseling them ?

  • ||

    There are exactly two living people on the planet who were direct witnesses to the confrontation.

    I did *not* argue that Michael Brown was innocent or that Wilson is a bloodthirsty killer. All I *actually* said is that the situation is less clear than most people would like it to be.

  • Pablo_||

    What, exactly, is the problem with a cop telling a couple of teenagers to get out of the street? What, exactly, did Wilson lie repeatedly about and why didn't Holder's DOJ figure it out?

  • ||

    He told several conflicting versions of events that could not all have been true.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think recent media attention glommed onto Ferguson, but this resentment against the police has been building for decades. It just became a story because they started getting video from people's cellphones to run on the internet and TV.

    Understand that in the media mind, if it didn't happen on camera, it didn't really happen. Even if we're just talking about something that happened and we only have paper documentation, the media won't really start covering it until there's a congressional hearing on it--something they can film and show on TV.

    None of this stuff used to happen on film. The Rodney King story was important because it was filmed--and that was unusual at the time. But resentment against the police has been simmering for decades. It's just that black people are rallying around specific cases because of the video evidence, and the media is covering these cases now--because there is video evidence where there wasn't before.

  • SugarFree||

    Fuck you, Pablo. Name one protest over the police killing someone who was firing a gun at them. Cop-sucking scumbag.

  • Pablo_||

    Well, fuck you too, SugarFree! Here's two, thug sucking nitwit. Vonderitt Myers is another one.

    http://nypost.com/2014/12/24/o.....-louis-pd/

    http://www.bentoneveningnews.c...../308209983

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    “If I don’t know you,” one Arizona cop told the Los Angeles Times, “I’m going to be extra guarded around you…"

    You, however, being subject to actual laws and the whims of those who enforce them, don't get to act wary of the stranger with the gun just because you don't know what kind of cop he is.

  • Pablo_||

    If you want to be wary of the cop with the gun, you might want to consider a course of action other than assault. That one is reckless, not cautious.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Try interacting with one while keeping your window only cracked and not completely rolled down. That minimal show of wariness will almost guarantee an assault will take place, but not one initiated by the motorist.

  • R C Dean||

    You realize that we now have multiple videos of cops gunning down people running away, with their hands in the air, etc. Not to mention killing a man for literally no reason whatsoever, because they knew him as the pettiest of offenders and he had the audacity to address them while they were looking for somebody else.

    So, yeah, fuck you, Pablo.

  • Pablo_||

    Well, fuck you too, R C Dean! I'm well aware of bad cops doing bad shoots and it being a bad thing, but that doesn't change the fact that if you assault a cop, he doesn't have to be a bad one to tune your dumb ass up. We have plenty of videos of that too, don't we?

  • R C Dean||

    "That's funny, officer. I don't know you, either, so I guess I need to be extra guarded around you. I'm turning on my cell phone, now. It is uploading to the cloud, now. Carry on."

  • Mr Lizard||

    You stoooooopid mammals can't even keep your enforcers from shitting themselves. Our reptilian enforcers would just double down the oppression until such nonsense. Maybe leave a few iphone dents in skulls.

  • Aloysious||

    I thought a certain percentage of LEO already were reptilian enforcers.

  • Tony||

    I heard a cop was momentarily denied service at Arby's. Imagine if it had been a doughnut shop. Isn't it better that all black Americans get shot in the back than go down that path of chaos and injustice?

  • Restoras||

    What the fuck are you even talking about, shit-for-brains?

  • Cyto||

    There was a story on the wire this morning about a fast food worker walking away from the register and refusing to serve a police officer.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    These kids need to watch Super Troopers to learn how to properly mess with a cop's fast food. SMH.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    +1 Myeeow

  • Zeb||

    Isn't it better that all black Americans get shot in the back than go down that path of chaos and injustice?

    Someone said that? Yeah, there are lots of cop lovers around here.

  • wareagle||

    all black Americans are not getting shot in the back, and the ones who do are more likely to be shot by other black Americans. Doesn't excuse boorish cops but they're not the biggest threat facing most blacks.

  • Tony||

    The same cultural inequities that cause cops to act as black population thinners are also responsible for higher rates of crime in black communities.

  • Restoras||

    The same cultural inequities that cause cops to act as black population thinners are also responsible for higher rates of crime in black communities.

    Cite?

  • Tony||

    Or else what? You're going to insist that there's something genetic about black people that makes them more prone to crime?

  • Restoras||

    Nope, not all. You're just making inflammatory, emotionally driven statements that have no basis in fact, unless you can provide some.

  • Tony||

    It's a school of inquiry with a long history. Knock yourself out.

  • Restoras||

    There is no 'cultural inequality" heading in that article, so I assume you have another source of facts for your fiction?

  • ||

    It's not genetic but it is cultural.

    How old were you when your father abandoned you Tony Troll ?

  • Tony||

    Something causes the cultural problem. Or are black people for some reason particularly prone to creating a detrimental culture for themselves?

  • JPyrate||

    Nah. It was "Tony's White, Progressive, Homosexual, Racist, Burden" That caused people to live in poverty, and then had to depend upon government "Help" in order to diminish the amount of "Poor People" that you Tony find so "unsightly"

  • Restoras||

    I mean, the two biggest "black population thinners", to quote a phrase that Margaret Sanger would be proud of, are abortion and other blacks, not cops. But we know facts like that are meaningless to progtards like you.

  • sarcasmic||

    Your facts are racist!

  • Tony||

    Margaret Sanger? Give me a fucking break. All you idiots all start saying the same things all at the same time.

  • JPyrate||

    " All you idiots all start saying the same things all at the same time."

    It does not change the fact that all of the progressive policies you endorse Tony have their origins with Margaret Sanger.

  • JPyrate||

  • Tony||

    You know what was happening at the same time progressives were flirting with eugenics? Conservatives were hanging people from trees for their skin color.

  • JPyrate||

    Yep conservative Democrats.

  • JPyrate||

    And the political arm of the KKK (Democrats) were not just flirting with eugenics. They came up with wage controls to keep minorities poor. Disarmament to keep them from fighting back against forced sterilization laws, and the promotion of birth control as an offered solution when genetically sound minorities could not support their families due to the wage controls. The only thing that the progressives did not count on was the implementation of the welfare state.

  • Tony||

    A person you just heard about for the first time the other day when Ben Carson mentioned her, I presume, because it's clear you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

  • JPyrate||

    ad hominem.

    The last resort of a weak sauce troll.

  • sarcasmic||

    All you idiots all start saying the same things all at the same time.

    Doesn't make what we say any less true.

  • Tony||

    Republican wind-up dolls can't say the truth even by accident.

  • sarcasmic||

    You wouldn't know the truth if it pissed in your mouth.

  • Restoras||

    Seems I touched a nerve with dear old proggie Tony. Whatsa matter, Tony? Facts getting in the way of your narrative to totalitarian power?

  • sarcasmic||

    This just shows how ridiculously stupid and dishonest Tony is. When presented with facts he runs away from the argument, only to come back a few days later spouting the same bullshit. He is absolutely incapable of learning anything. Calling him a moron is an insult to most morons.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Don't lump in Libertarians with Republicans. Not the same thing. You should go to National Review or Weekly Standard and troll.

  • crazyfingers||

    Barack Obama's War on Drugs is the reason for most black on black crime, dumbass.

  • JPyrate||

    Try Richard Nixon.

  • JPyrate||

    Tony's dilemma.

    Support a Libertarian position that he agrees with, or insult Libertarians ?

  • Tony||

    I was insulting cops.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It is his own version of Sophie's Choice.

  • Teaching Student||

    OT: Browsing Reason from Jury Duty. I feel like such a deviant.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    necromancy?

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Nutsack.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Nah, definitely use it, maybe like this:

    "Hi! My name is Teaching Student, but my friends call my NULLIFY!"

    You should be out of there in a heartbeat.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    How about "Hi, I'm Teaching Student, but my friends call me "Nickleback Fan."

    Warning: This could backfire because you are in the throes of government, and the people in government could be the ones who support Nickleback, and they may consider you one of their own.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Totally. I can see one of the attorneys saying "Nickelback? I celebrate their entire catalog!"

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I know we have some attorneys in this chatroom who seem like perfectly sane, not-so-evil people, and I am sure some are, but I think we can all agree they are almost certainly Nickleback fans.

    Lawyers love Nickleback.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Clearly. Why else would they do what they do?

  • Swiss Servator||

    *double narrowed gaze*

  • Citizen X||

    Nullification?

  • Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

    "Don't mention nullification! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right.

    So! It's all forgotten now, and let's hear no more about it. So, that's two egg mayonnaise, a prawn John Peter Zenger, a wood chipper, and four null salads."

  • Copernicus would chip||

    Nagger?

  • Restoras||

    Nutella?

  • Nonstopdrivel||

    That cops try to play the victim card proves what pussies the lot of them are.

  • Copernicus would chip||

    ^^. It's almost painful to observe how completely unaware they are of their huge pussies.

  • SIV||

  • simplybe||

    I understand most police are decent people but when you consistently cover up for the bad apples don't cry when you are painted by a board brush. Everyday cops are killing innocent people, raping women, having sex with minors and raiding the wrong houses while humiliating the owners and killing their pets. The official response seems to be "Oh well sit happens". If you are going to act like a gang of thugs don't cry when sit happens. If MS 13 comes into your neighborhood demanding you obey them no one cares if a few get shot. If the gang of blue comes into your neighborhood acting like thugs then what is the difference

  • Tabasco||

    Note - Darren Goforth was a Sheriff's DEPUTY. The Harris County Sheriff is Ron Hickman.

  • Mackenzie Brunson||

    There have been hundreds of websites dedicated to police brutality for ages and the ACLU made it a priority years ago. The police currently have one of the most serious PR crises I have ever seen and anybody following this saw it coming a long time ago. If it was a singular case it would make the news cycle and die out quickly. When there are new stories to report, you can't escape being reported on. The response from the police is that we are ungrateful subjects while simultaneously crossing their fingers that this will blow over. There are a small minority of bad apples in every line of work. I work for a nonprofit and you can't escape the stories about embezzlement or CEOs with high pay. I don't make excuses, but I could. Nonprofit employees are underpaid, overworked, and some of them deal with the worst society has to offer. I could say, "Oh, they were struggling to pay their bills. It's hard dealing with homeless kids. Unless you've ever signed up for this work and done it yourself mind your own business." I don't do that. I call it out and remind people that we are subservient to our missions. We are constantly reviewing and revising our policy and procedure to make sure we are fair, honest and transparent. That's the kind of response that people want to hear. "We hear you, we understand, we want to make you trust us." We don't want to hear, "we killed you on our watch and it's all your fault."

  • Robert||

    Sometimes the misreadings are my own fault. I puzzled for a while over

    who a week ago was murdered while filling his police cruiser with gas


    thinking he'd been committing suicide when someone shortcutted the process, before I thought of the more prosaic meaning of "filling his police cruiser with gas".

  • Real American||

    How on fucking earth was this an "unmotivated killing"? What kind of fucking bullshit is that? Of course, the killing was motivated. It wasn't some random accident. This cop was shot because he was a cop. It was unprovoked, but not unmotivated.

  • RobLAL||

    Let's see what Gillespie calls "very welcome national conversation" (from Cop Block) :

    " The War Against The Police Will Continue......"

    OOOOPS! They didn't get his propaganda memo.

    " The American terrorist organization funded by taxpayers hard at work" Cops would be funny if they weren't terrorist murderers."

    " I wish the cops would have caught the suspects and killed them now !! Would have been fun to see that shit storm after the cop isn't punished one bit lol"

    " He shouldve died in the wreck for real"

    " Dum ass pigs once again, polute the streets of your city"

    " Fuck lawsuits. Arm a militia and revolt."

    " Then u wonder y civilians killing cops"

    Charming.

  • XM||

    Surely, there's a difference between police officers who die in the line of duty and those who were assassinated in cold blood by individuals who were motivated by a racialist movement that's been known to call for violence and has already looted businesses and killed one Serbian immigrant.

    We're having this discussion now because cops were caught shooting black kids. It's sad but true. Yet, the police kill more whites than blacks, and black cops shoot blacks as often as white officers. BLM was inactive as recently as the Kelly Thomas incident. Many blacks insisted that Zimmerman should have deferred to the police, even though GZ never actually stopped Martin.

    What we're seeing is a clash of bad policing by unqualified officers and a segment of the American society that tends to experience a high number of crime and poverty. The police do not shoot Muslims and Asians as much as they do blacks, and many immigrants comply with officer's demands when stopped.

    There is a sane and actionable solution to this problem, but that's not what BLM wants. They've reduced cops to cartoonishly evil racists and would empower the federal government for answers. Shootings are going up in some cities as cops shy away from their jobs.

  • PD Quig||

    Cops are certainly not perfect, but are you really suggesting that Michael Brown (for instance) was a "kid" shot by a cop? And not a strong armed robber felon who resisted arrest, attempted to steal an officer's handgun, and then charged the officer? Blacks are 7-10 times more likely to commit violent crime in America. The percentage of blacks arrested corresponds nearly perfectly with the percentage of blacks identified by victims and witnesses as being the perpetrator.

    You should really read Jason Riley's book "Stop Helping Us" and anything written by Heather McDonald. You are laboring under some pretty easily dispelled misconceptions--as is the vast majority of black America.

  • PD Quig||

    Hey, dickhead....yeah you, Gillespie. Come here. My Glock and I want to have a long overdue conversation with you.

  • woodNfish||

    This column is proof that Gillespie can get it right when he isn't bloviating about illegal immigrants' and his idiotic open borders nonsense.

  • bak||

    "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon."
    "What do we want?"..."dead cops!"
    Nope. No war on cops. Nothing to see here, move along.
    I know facts and evidence and REASON are lost on leftists, and completely meaningless to your arguments. I know to a leftist, the end always justifies the means, and cause and effect and unintended consequences are brushed away with their supposedly good intentions. But to deny there is a war on cops, a war the leftists instigated to push an ideological agenda, and then brush aside the numerous and blatant evidence of said war as "isolated hype", is hypocritical and pathetic. After all, it was the left who not only sought to hype and nationalize some very isolated cases of police misconduct in order to gin up the blacks and gain a political advantage, but their biggest rallying cry- micheal brown and "hands up dont shoot"- was a complete fabrication! The leftists didn't just magnify a case about police abuse to score badly needed points with the racial grievance industry- they made a case up out of hole cloth and trumpeted every lie and falsehood they could to promote their agenda. Leftists are pitiful, wretched creatures. The unaccountability and hypocrisy on display here is despicable. You made it, leftists, the least you could do is own it. But, no, to a leftist with "good intentions", the havoc of their policies and proscriptions is always someone elses fault.

  • bak||

    http://www.channel3000.com/new.....y/35082128

    Nope. No war on cops. No anti-police sentiment here. None whatsoever. Never mind what you see and hear yourself, im a leftist and I will tell you what the real truth is. And don't you dare try to blame this on me. Im a leftist, so the consequences of my words and actions are not to be judged- period. Only my intentions matter. So there. And how dare you suggest otherwise. Im a leftist, and I'm here to help, whther you like it or want it or not, because I know better than you whats good for you. And if some cops have to die so that us leftists get what we want, so be it.

  • Jessy08||

    The best that Goodell's own completely biased investigation could come up with a big "maybe". Then, for an offense on the same level as using stick-em (a $5k fine for first offenders), he suspends Brady for a quarter of the season and takes a first round pick?

    Goodell is out of his mind.

  • Agent Cupcake||

    Cathy R posted on FB today about a cop who wanted to use the bathroom at Starbucks. The barista said it was only for paying customers. The cop was so outraged, he took to FB to complain about the "disrespect" that was shown to him and how nobody in the coffee shop stood up for him. The narrative now is that cops are victims. The irony is delicious.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online