Liberty Imperiled - Welcome To Cop-Land

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Matthew Harwood via TomDispatch.com,

If you’ve been listening to various police agencies and their supporters, then you know what the future holds: anarchy is coming -- and it’s all the fault of activists.

In May, a Wall Street Journal op-ed warned of a “new nationwide crime wave” thanks to “intense agitation against American police departments” over the previous year. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie went further. Talking recently with the host of CBS’s Face the Nation, the Republican presidential hopeful asserted that the Black Lives Matter movement wasn’t about reform but something far more sinister. “They’ve been chanting in the streets for the murder of police officers,” he insisted. Even the nation’s top cop, FBI Director James Comey, weighed in at the University of Chicago Law School, speaking of “a chill wind that has blown through American law enforcement over the last year.”

According to these figures and others like them, lawlessness has been sweeping the nation as the so-called Ferguson effect spreads. Criminals have been emboldened as police officers are forced to think twice about doing their jobs for fear of the infamy of starring in the next viral video. The police have supposedly become the targets of assassins intoxicated by “anti-cop rhetoric,” just as departments are being stripped of the kind of high-powered equipment they need to protect officers and communities.  Even their funding streams have, it’s claimed, come under attack as anti-cop bias has infected Washington, D.C.  Senator Ted Cruz caught the spirit of that critique by convening a Senate subcommittee hearing to which he gave the title, “The War on Police: How the Federal Government Undermines State and Local Law Enforcement.” According to him, the federal government, including the president and attorney general, has been vilifying the police, who are now being treated as if they, not the criminals, were the enemy.

Beyond the storm of commentary and criticism, however, quite a different reality presents itself. In the simplest terms, there is no war on the police. Violent attacks against police officers remain at historic lows, even though approximately 1,000 people have been killed by the police this year nationwide. In just the past few weeks, videos have been released of problematic fatal police shootings in San Francisco and Chicago.

While it’s too soon to tell whether there has been an uptick in violent crime in the post-Ferguson period, no evidence connects any possible increase to the phenomenon of police violence being exposed to the nation. What is taking place and what the police and their supporters are largely reacting to is a modest push for sensible law enforcement reforms from groups as diverse as Campaign Zero, Koch Industries, the Cato Institute, The Leadership Conference, and the ACLU (my employer). Unfortunately, as the rhetoric ratchets up, many police agencies and organizations are increasingly resistant to any reforms, forgetting whom they serve and ignoring constitutional limits on what they can do.

Indeed, a closer look at law enforcement arguments against commonsense reforms like independently investigating police violence, demilitarizing police forces, or ending “for-profit policing” reveals a striking disregard for concerns of just about any sort when it comes to brutality and abuse. What this “debate” has revealed, in fact, is a mainstream policing mindset ready to manufacture fear without evidence and promote the belief that American civil rights and liberties are actually an impediment to public safety. In the end, such law enforcement arguments subvert the very idea that the police are there to serve the community and should be under civilian control.

And that, when you come right down to it, is the logic of the police state.

Due Process Plus

It’s no mystery why so few police officers are investigated and prosecuted for using excessive force and violating someone’s rights. “Local prosecutors rely on local police departments to gather the evidence and testimony they need to successfully prosecute criminals,” according to Campaign Zero . “This makes it hard for them to investigate and prosecute the same police officers in cases of police violence.”

Since 2005, according to an analysis by the Washington Post and Bowling Green State University, only 54 officers have been prosecuted nationwide, despite the thousands of fatal shootings by police. As Philip M. Stinson, a criminologist at Bowling Green, puts it, “To charge an officer in a fatal shooting, it takes something so egregious, so over the top that it cannot be explained in any rational way. It also has to be a case that prosecutors are willing to hang their reputation on.”

For many in law enforcement, however, none of this should concern any of us. When New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed an executive order appointing a special prosecutor to investigate police killings, for instance, Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, insisted: “Given the many levels of oversight that already exist, both internally in the NYPD [New York Police Department] and externally in many forms, the appointment of a special prosecutor is unnecessary.” Even before Cuomo’s decision, the chairman of New York’s District Attorneys Association called plans to appoint a special prosecutor for police killings “deeply insulting.”

Such pushback against the very idea of independently investigating police actions has, post-Ferguson, become everyday fare, and some law enforcement leaders have staked out a position significantly beyond that.  The police, they clearly believe, should get special treatment.

“By virtue of our dangerous vocation, we should expect to receive the benefit of the doubt in controversial incidents,” wrote Ed Mullins, the president of New York City’s Sergeants Benevolent Association, in the organization’s magazine, Frontline. As if to drive home the point, its cover depicts Baltimore State Attorney Marilyn Mosby under the ominous headline “The Wolf That Lurks.” In May, Mosby had announced indictments of six officers in the case of Freddie Gray, who died in Baltimore police custody the previous month. The message being sent to a prosecutor willing to indict cops was hardly subtle: you’re a traitor.

Mullins put forward a legal standard for officers accused of wrongdoing that he would never support for the average citizen -- and in a situation in which cops already get what former federal prosecutor Laurie Levenson calls “a super presumption of innocence."  In addition, police unions in many states have aggressively pushed for their own bills of rights, which make it nearly impossible for police officers to be fired, much less charged with crimes when they violate an individual’s civil rights and liberties.

In 14 states, versions of a Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBR) have already been passed, while in 11 others they are under consideration.  These provide an “extra layer of due process” in cases of alleged police misconduct, according to Samuel Walker, an expert on police accountability. In many of the states without a LEOBR, the Marshall Project has discovered, police unions have directly negotiated the same rights and privileges with state governments.

LEOBRs are, in fact, amazingly un-American documents in the protections they afford officers accused of misconduct during internal investigations, rights that those officers are never required to extend to their suspects. Though the specific language of these laws varies from state to state, notes Mike Riggs in Reason, they are remarkably similar in their special considerations for the police.

“Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a ‘cooling off’ period before he has to respond to any questions. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated ‘at a reasonable hour,’ with a union member present. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only ‘for reasonable periods,’ which ‘shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.’ Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be ‘threatened with disciplinary action’ at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.”

The Marshall Project refers to these laws as the “Blue Shield” and “the original Bill of Rights with an upgrade.’’ Police associations, naturally, don’t agree. "All this does is provide a very basic level of constitutional protections for our officers, so that they can make statements that will stand up later in court," says Vince Canales, the president of Maryland's Fraternal Order of Police.

Put another way, there are two kinds of due process in America -- one for cops and another for the rest of us. This is the reason why the Black Lives Matter movement and other civil rights and civil liberties organizations regularly call on states to create a special prosecutor’s office to launch independent investigations when police seriously injure or kill someone.

The Demilitarized Blues

Since Americans first took in those images from Ferguson of police units outfitted like soldiers, riding in military vehicles, and pointing assault rifles at protesters, the militarization of the police and the way the Pentagon has been supplying them with equipment directly off this country’s distant battlefields have been top concerns for police reformers. In May, the Obama administration suggested modest changes to the Pentagon’s 1033 program, which, since 1990, has been redistributing weaponry and equipment to police departments nationwide -- urban, suburban, and rural -- in the name of fighting the war on drugs and protecting Americans from terrorism.  

Even the idea that the police shouldn’t sport the look of an occupying army in local communities has, however, been met with fierce resistance. Read, for example, the online petition started by the National Sheriffs' Association and you could be excused for thinking that the Obama administration was aggressively moving to stop the flow of military-grade equipment to local and state police agencies. (It isn’t.)  The message that tops the petition is as simple as it is misleading: “Don’t strip law enforcement of the gear they need to keep us safe.”

The Obama administration has done no such thing. In May, the president announced that he was prohibiting certain military-grade equipment from being transferred to state and local law enforcement. “Some equipment made for the battlefield is not appropriate for local police departments,” he said. The list included tracked armored vehicles (essentially tanks), bayonets, grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms, and guns and ammo of .50 caliber or higher. In reality, what use could a local police department have for bayonets, grenade launchers, or the kinds of bullets that resemble small missiles, pierce armor, and can blow people’s limbs off?

Yet the sheriffs' association has no problem complaining that “the White House announced the government would no longer provide equipment like helicopters and MRAPs [mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles] to local law enforcement.” And it’s not even true. Police departments can still obtain both helicopters and MRAPs if they establish community policing practices, institute training protocols, and get community approval before the equipment transfer occurs. 

“Helicopters rescue runaways and natural disaster victims,” the sheriff’s association adds gravely, “and MRAPs are used to respond to shooters who barricade themselves in neighborhoods and are one of the few vehicles able to navigate hurricane, snowstorm, and tornado-strewn areas to save survivors.”

As with our wars abroad, think mission creep at home. A program started to wage the war on drugs, and strengthened after 9/11, is now being justified on the grounds that certain equipment is useful during disasters or emergencies. In reality, the police have clearly become hooked on a militarized look. Many departments are ever more attached to their weapons of war and evidently don’t mind the appearance of being an occupying force in their communities, which leaves groups like the sheriffs' association fighting fiercely for a militarized future.

Legal Plunder

 In July, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona sued law enforcement in Pinal County, Arizona, on behalf of Rhonda Cox. Two years before, her son had stolen some truck accessories and, without her knowledge, fitted them on her truck. When the county sheriff’s department arrested him, it also seized the truck.

Arriving on the scene of her son’s arrest, Cox asked a deputy about getting her truck back. No way, he told her. After she protested, explaining that she had nothing to do with her son’s alleged crimes, he responded “too bad.” Under Arizona law, the truck could indeed be taken into custody and kept or sold off by the sheriff’s department even though she was never charged with a crime. It was guilty even if she wasn’t.

Welcome to America’s civil asset forfeiture laws, another product of law enforcement’s failed war on drugs, updated for the twenty-first century. Originally designed to deprive suspected real-life Scarfaces of the spoils of their illicit trade -- houses, cars, boats -- it now regularly deprives people unconnected to the war on drugs of their property without due process of law and in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Not surprisingly, corruption follows.

Federal and state law enforcement can now often keep property seized or sell it and retain a portion of the revenue generated. Some of this, in turn, can be repurposed and distributed as bonuses in police and other law enforcement departments.  The only way the dispossessed stand a chance of getting such “forfeited” property back is if they are willing to take on the government in a process where the deck is stacked against them.

In such cases, for instance, property owners have no right to an attorney to defend them, which means that they must either pony up additional cash for a lawyer or contest the seizure themselves in court.  “It is an upside-down world where,” says the libertarian Institute for Justice, “the government holds all the cards and has the financial incentive to play them to the hilt.”

In this century, civil asset forfeiture has mutated into what’s now called “for-profit policing” in which police departments and state and federal law enforcement agencies indiscriminately seize the property of citizens who aren’t drug kingpins. Sometimes, for instance, distinctly ordinary citizens suspected of driving drunk or soliciting prostitutes get their cars confiscated. Sometimes they simply get cash taken from them on suspicion of low-level drug dealing.

Like most criminal justice issues, race matters in civil asset forfeiture. This summer, the ACLU of Pennsylvania issued a report, Guilty Property, documenting how the Philadelphia Police Department and district attorney’s office abused state civil asset forfeiture by taking at least $1 million from innocent people within the city limits. Approximately 70% of the time, those people were black, even though the city’s population is almost evenly divided between whites and African-Americans.  

Currently, only one state, New Mexico, has done away with civil asset forfeiture entirely, while also severely restricting state and local law enforcement from profiting off similar national laws when they work with the feds. (The police in Albuquerque are, however, actively defying the new law, demonstrating yet again the way in which police departments believe the rules don’t apply to them.) That no other state has done so is hardly surprising. Police departments have become so reliant on civil asset forfeiture to pad their budgets and acquire “little goodies” that reforming, much less repealing, such laws are a tough sell.

As with militarization, when police defend such policies, you sense their urgent desire to maintain what many of them now clearly think of as police rights. In August, for instance, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu sent a fundraising email to his supporters using the imagined peril of the ACLU lawsuit as clickbait. In justifying civil forfeiture, he failed to mention that a huge portion of the money goes to enrich his own department, but praised the program in this fashion:

"[O]ver the past seven years, the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office has donated $1.2 million of seized criminal money to support youth programs like the Boys & Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, YMCA, high school graduation night lock-in events, youth sports as well as veterans groups, local food banks, victims assistance programs, and Home of Home in Casa Grande."

Under this logic, police officers can steal from people who haven’t even been charged with a crime as long as they share the wealth with community organizations -- though, in fact, neither in Pinal County or elsewhere is that where most of the confiscated loot appears to go. Think of this as the development of a culture of thievery masquerading as Robin Hood in blue.

Contempt for Civilian Control 

Post-Ferguson developments in policing are essentially a struggle over whether the police deserve special treatment and exceptions from the rules the rest of us must follow. For too long, they have avoided accountability for brutal misconduct, while in this century arming themselves for war on America’s streets and misusing laws to profit off the public trust, largely in secret. The events of the past two years have offered graphic evidence that police culture is dysfunctional and in need of a democratic reformation.

There are, of course, still examples of law enforcement leaders who see the police as part of American society, not exempt from it. But even then, the reformers face stiff resistance from the law enforcement communities they lead. In Minneapolis, for instance, Police Chief Janeé Harteau attempted to have state investigators look into incidents when her officers seriously hurt or killed someone in the line of duty. Police union opposition killed her plan. In Philadelphia, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey ordered his department to publicly release the names of officers involved in shootings within 72 hours of any incident. The city’s police union promptly challenged his policy, while the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a bill in November to stop the release of the names of officers who fire their weapon or use force when on the job unless criminal charges are filed. Not surprisingly, three powerful police unions in the state supported the legislation. 

In the present atmosphere, many in the law enforcement community see the Harteaus and Ramseys of their profession as figures who don’t speak for them, and groups or individuals wanting even the most modest of police reforms as so many police haters. As former New York Police Department Commissioner Howard Safir told Fox News in May, “Similar to athletes on the playing field, sometimes it's difficult to tune out the boos from the no-talents sipping their drinks, sitting comfortably in their seats. It's demoralizing to read about the misguided anti-cop gibberish spewing from those who take their freedoms for granted.”

The disdain in such imagery, increasingly common in the world of policing, is striking. It smacks of a police-state, bunker mentality that sees democratic values and just about any limits on the power of law enforcement as threats. In other words, the Safirs want the public -- particularly in communities of color and poor neighborhoods -- to shut up and do as it’s told when a police officer says so. If the cops give the orders, compliance -- so this line of thinking goes -- isn’t optional, no matter how egregious the misconduct or how sensible the reforms. Obey or else.

The post-Ferguson public clamor demanding better policing continues to get louder, and yet too many police departments have this to say in response: Welcome to Cop Land. We make the rules around here.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
MrNosey's picture

The next false flag, gun confiscation and martial law are just around the corner......

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/12/false-flag-attacks-...

NoDebt's picture

In the old days the police watched over the people.  Now they watch the people.  

A well armed citizenry needs little policing.

 

NidStyles's picture

This is all pushing the anti-arrest black criminals meme.... 

38BWD22's picture

 

 

More or less on topic, Visual Capitalist put out a Bitcoin graphic showing recent growth and 2016 prospects.  

Link:

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/33-signs-that-bitcoin-growth-isnt-slowin...

BTC is hard to regulate, and if you do it right, it's very private.  A good way to quietly hide (or move) some wealth.

Motasaurus's picture

"many police agencies and organizations are increasingly resistant to any reforms, forgetting whom they serve "

They haven't forgotten whom they serve. They serve the people who pay their salaries. Always have, always will. It has been a very long time since the tax payer paid anyone but the banks.  

zhandax's picture

His comment should not be overlooked.  I get tired of seeing in financial articles (Tyler, this includes you) 'the taxpayer gets stuck with it'.  Face facts, the taxpayer barely covers interest expense these days.  It is new debt creation courtesy of you know who that covers all these atrocities.

TIMBO Anti-Castro's picture

Most if not all government workers havenot only forgotten who pays there salaries but it is obvious that they never knew.  Cops and bureaucrats have utter disdain for the taxpayer and most are too stupid to figure out where the money comes from.

 

Be careful of the average dolt that warns against police scrutiny.  They are the first to sign up for the trumps and Obama's of the world that tell you less freedom is what you want and need. 

 

It seems froom your response that you advocate more cop abuse and violation of freedom in the name of freedom.  That response is a sheep being led to the wolves den.  You are an average american dolt - and a dangerous one t that. 

The bottom line that a militarized police force in army fatigues is a sublte and effective tactic of intimidation and subservience and people do not question it until it is too late. 

Dungeness's picture

A few weeks back there was a local police Swat team vehicle in a Christmas parade, in a small Louisiana town.

Ignatius's picture

You wanna cool out the cops?  Re-issue 1963 Ford Falcons and paint 'em powder blue with smart-cut, coffee-with-cream uniforms and put a cherry on top, Andy of Mayberry style.

Fuck the 'Die, motherfucker, die' late model, jet black Dodge Chargers that feed the narcissism -- those are for kids.  Let them wrap it around a tree and the cops can stay busy writing the report.

Stainless Steel Rat's picture
Stainless Steel Rat (not verified) Ignatius Dec 22, 2015 12:04 AM

Yep, and put a lifelong ban on the personality bending roids.  These people are trusted with a fuck of a lot to be letting them dose themselves with these Jeckyl & Hyde neurohormones. 

Ignatius's picture

Good point. 

They've got most of the rest of us pissing in cups, I agree let's test for 'roids.

zhandax's picture

I will admit, I saw an alarmingly attention-grabbing led side marker job on a cop car last weekend.  A Charger with all LED embedded side trim that flashed in sequence.  Wonder how much that little accessory added to the purchase price of a stripped-down cop model?

Down to Earth Thinking's picture

I fear my own government far more than the two jihadis at San Berdoo or the two kids at Boston. Actually I do not fear either of those supposed terrorist acts at all. The stage is set for martial law once we have a few more larger events take place people will beg for it ! They are afraid of their own shadows from 2 people, WTF ? The RESET is already in motion and this will all play right into it quite well.

messystateofaffairs's picture

" I fear my own government far more than...."

Sounds to me like they are not your "own government".

Victor von Doom's picture

"I fear the Fed's Zio banskter government far more than..."

Fixed it for ya.

o r c k's picture

Film ANY contact with police or even with Gov. employees. Your life and or your finances depend upon it. When ANY public employee gets upset about your camera, that's clear proof that they are criminals in hiding. NEVER have a casual conversation with a cop. (that advice was given by the Supreme Court). You are a milk-cow to them and nothing else. They are NOT your friend under any circumstance.

seek's picture

Just... ugh. I'm all for alternative news, but...  beforeitsnews has got to be the shittiest conspiracy website in existence. It makes the national enquirer Bat Boy stories look like pentagon papers level investigated journalism.

Literally anything can get into the feed and it's 99% insane religious ramblings, in the past five years I think they've had stories about Planet Niburu is going to desroy earth next week probably a few hundred times. The current #3 headline as I post this is:

"Pope Message: Christmas Is Cancelled Now That World War 3 Has Begun."

Seriously. The Onion and 4chan have more reliable news.

I'm going to suggest two things: anyone that doesn't believe me actually go to the site and read the top 10 stories, and two, that beforeitsnews is such a terrible source that if you find something valid on it, to use that to find another story on the same topic from a better source that people will actualy believe, and link to that.

Duc888's picture

 

 

Seek, re: Beforeitsnews, lots of ZH articles linked there.  Also Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente and other worthwhile stuff.  It's not one of my first "go to" sites but if it helps spread the word to others who would not necessarily come to ZH...then it ain't that bad.

Sometimes ya gotta spoon out a few turds from the punchbowl.

seek's picture

Unfortunately it's more like trying to find a spoonful of punch in a turdbowl.

Especially when there's plenty of sources -- and hell, you can go direct and go to ZH, Schiff, Celente direct or just find an aggregator that's not so thoroughly whacked. This is why I advocated linking to a location with a better reputation, I honestly think beforeitsnews picking something up actually damages the source's credibility, not the source has any control over this.

Bay of Pigs's picture

Hey Tyler...the old vets get it. Get this shit out of here.

Sanity Bear's picture

They'll link to anything... a beforeitsnews link means it was published on the internet somewhere by someone, full stop.

 

The site is basically one massive clickbait operation.

messystateofaffairs's picture

One way to taint valuable information is to dump it in the turdbowl. Sometimes you have to pick the diamonds out of the turdbowl, but thats a messy business, and sometimes you have to pick the turds out of the diamond bowl, a better way to go. In the end its always up to you to form a worldview so you have to keep those filters working.

WillyGroper's picture

Both Adams & Alex Jones had links on their sites re: Fetzer's book "Nobody Died @ SH,"  censored on AMZN, and both were quietly taken down.

Did they receive an offer they couldn't refuse?

Down to Earth Thinking's picture

Mike adams is just another internet marketer and censors a lot of comments on his site. He is all about Mo Money and little else although he does put out some good info for those that are not very well informed about their health. But nearly everything is simply sales hype. Jones and him had a falling out a few years ago over money and egos. Mikes ego is huge and a driving force of his dynamic, I don't know about Jones ? But then there are guys like Jack Spirko who is way past off the charts dumb and tries to pass for something else, not sure what ? So they come in many flavors but nearly all simply playing to greater fools ! At least Mike is fit and apparently some what healthy as he talks it a lot but backs it up . Jack talks fitness and health and he is obviously obese  ?  and every investment scheme he has gotten involved in or promoted has failed miserably like his silver mint scheme and Bitcoin as the latest thing since popcoprn idea ? WTF,  who would actually pay this guy for anything ? I was asked to get involved a few years ago to help put out a new promotion on a land deal and I told him and his protege they were full of shit ! Because they are ? actually laughably so  :),  just another salesman hypester bullshitter so common on the net and in politics these days ! Jack would be far better off to stick with his homesteading ideas becasue he does have some knowledge in that area ! I suspect he will go down in flames in lawsuit or suits or a heart attack or both !

ebworthen's picture

Stormtroopers of the Empire!

Burticus's picture

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."

Sanity Bear's picture

Nope, it's with bad acting.

LetThemEatRand's picture

When I was 10 or 11 in the 1970's, I was riding down my residential street on my bike with my hands off the handlebars.  A cop drove by, and stopped me.  He took me home and told my parents and issued me a warning.   Arguably it was a little over the top, but I know in hindsight he meant well.  He was protecting me (a kid) and also drivers who may have a very bad day if they hit me through no fault of their own.   I gave him no shit, and was balling my eyes out.  Today, the kid in my position would probably run and/or tell the cop to fuck off.

I get the difficulty faced by police today, but I also see that TPTB are deliberately hiring steroid freaks who are on a power trip with low IQ, and then arming them to the teeth.  

NoDebt's picture

I guess there are some people even McDonalds won't hire.

Implied Violins's picture

Thank you for not mentioning Chipotle.

Hitlery_4_Dictator's picture

Damn, why did you have to go and mention Chipotgay.

zeronetwork's picture

In the seventies kids used to walk home from school in the midst of gang fight and bullets flying at 125th street Manhattan, and don't even mention it back at home. Today high school kids cannot even cross the street if there is no pedestrian crossing.

Sanity Bear's picture

tattooed steroid freaks, no less

 

I remember being floored the first time I saw a cop with heavy tattoos, it was clear visual evidence that the criminals are indeed in charge.

Shpedly's picture

I'm totally with you. Life doesnt really have to be that hard. All you have to do is follow the signs. Dont steal, dont kill, 55MPH, red means stop etc. Generally dont be an asshole and you'll be fine.

Calmyourself's picture

Stop at stop signs and when the power mad cop tells you to hand over all the cash in your center console you hand it over, its for the children.

Gargoyle's picture

I get it, too.  I grew up with cops: cousins, HS buds, neighbors, girlfriends' fathers, little league coaches.  For the most part they were good guys; not above some basic vanilla graft ( a way of life in Chicago), but on whole they got it right and had some humanity. And they clearly got shat upon by certain elements. But none of them would shoot a dog, or fuck someone up who didn't have it coming, which seems to be a basic prerequisite for today's asshole thug cop.

Every time I read stuff like this I can't help but recall Clockwork Orange. "There'll be no more callin me Dim"

Victor von Doom's picture

So you're saying they only hire imbeciles then? Sounds like they're drawing them from the general pool of the populace.

The culture has gone to rot - from top to bottom. 

Just how many intelligent, thinking, non-corrupted individuals do you think are still alive in America?

A million? Two? Even if it was as high as 5% it would only bust 15Million. The rest are either dumb as a box of hammers or corrupt to the core.

It's the entire population that's fucked, not just the cops.

lakecity55's picture

So, the cops are getting nervous.....

Seasmoke's picture

Yes. And it's the little camera that they are most scared of. It trumped everyone of their overkill weapons. I can't wait until they are disbanded everywhere.

Casey Jones's picture

I miss the old school cops who napped in their squad cars after a a couple three glazed jelly donuts.

Seasmoke's picture

Sorry guys in costumes. I'm siding with the people.

WTFUD's picture

' keepers of the gate ' , public servants or masked crusaders? These keystone cops should be wearing pinstripe suits and carrying violin cases.

A Lunatic's picture

Apart from my consent you have no authority over me.......

truthalwayswinsout's picture

It all started with fines for speeding. Then they got bigger and bigger and bigger until a simple fine for speeding is now a major revenue center when minimum tickets costs of $150.

When our economy collapses from all the National Socialists games being played, remember one thing; when the police come knocking on your door, they will take everything you have and if you are lucky they will let you live.

seek's picture

$150?

In my state, a simple traffic offense can easily reach $2,000. I'm not talking DUI, I'm talking something like 9 miles over the limit, if the circumstances line up right.  Assuming you're not habitual, traffic school wil cost you as much as the basic ticket does and saves you the hassle, but god forbid if you should challenge a ticket, or worse yet, have them screw up the paperwork, send notice to the wrong address or issue a photo radar ticket.

My ex had a podunk police department "lose" her fine payment, issue 2K in additional fines, suspend her license and issue a warrant. The thing that hadn't counted on was her showing up at their own courthouse with the court-issued reciept for the fine and a lawyer -- they were seriously ready to jail her on the spot until they got not only the fine paid twice, but all the additional fees paid as well. If you're a poor person who can't file reciepts, you're fucked.

Sanity Bear's picture

Virginia had a $3250 speeding ticket at one point. The law was introduced by a Delegate (state congressman) whose other job was running a law firm that specialized in defending traffic violations. I kid you not. He's still in office, too.

CAPT DRAKE's picture

There are three phases of police presence:

1)  Now.  Somewhat normal to some but very dangerous to most.

2) System stressed.  Cops still patrol and wear uniforms but with a difference - they make the law and the rules.  If you are a prepper, your place will be the first one "visited" to steal your prep.  They kill at will, and steal with impunity.  

3) System collapsed.  They are like any other armed person and no longer have authority to order the populice to do anything.

Clearly phase 2 is the most dangerous and was witnessed in New Orleans after Katrina.  Some say that the government showed their hand during that event and that it was a view of the future.  Really hope not.

 

booboo's picture

I have a general rules of thumb. Don't give a police officer an opportunity to murder you. Play nice and live to fight another day on the terrain of your choosing. Avoid contact with police. If you really need a cop you are probably under armed. Keep all pets safely stowed around police. Don't offer a donut to a cop, let him steal it from you. If confronted by a police officer stay calm, allow him to feel in control, immediatley ask him not to shoot you, taking this measure introduces the worst case scenerio and can only de escalate from there:)