Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic: In [an] item from The Federalist ... Hans Fiene urges conservatives who reflexively trust the police to show a bit more skepticism. "Police brutality is not the Bogeyman," he writes. "It's not an urban legend witnessed by none but told by many. It's not a myth created by a primitive tribe that is too simple to understand the true source of the brokenness in its communities. Black people believe in police brutality for the same reason they believe in rain -- because they've felt it ... For those of us who have never experienced law enforcement corrupted by power, basic human decency should require that we try to understand and consider the perspective of those who have ..."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rstybeach11

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

[I]n the age of YouTube and Google, where police brutality can be seen from the comfort of one's home, along with documentation from dozens of serious law enforcement scandals, there is no longer any valid excuse for being blind to bad cops generally, or denying the possibility that an officer could have callously killed an unarmed man. ...

Don't trust. Verify.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Oh my.

#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-18 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

For years we have complained about this, now one conservative actually doubts his denial. Amazing. When will he get the courage to doubt his entire political philosophy? Probably never.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-18 10:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I like how in that womans case they said they were trying to help her because she was endangering herself.

#3 | Posted by daniel_3 at 2014-08-18 11:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see no reason for not having cameras with 360 views around the vehicle, its cheap and useful evidence.

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-08-19 01:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Andrea: If that is what it takes to get conservatives to stop being in denial about the common, every day reality of police brutality then yes, I agree. Let's put cameras on all police cars.

#5 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-08-19 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

There will NOT be a "Video Killed the Radio Star" parody in this thread, despite the overwhelming temptation to do so.

#6 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-08-19 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

Andrea: If that is what it takes to get conservatives to stop being in denial about the common, every day reality of police brutality then yes, I agree. Let's put cameras on all police cars.
#5 | POSTED BY MODER8

I believe there is brutality, but everyday? I doubt it.

Putting the camera on the car protects, both the officer, and the people.

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-08-19 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

If people didn't act 'stoopid' around the cops there would be a lot less trouble.

Walking down the middle of the street and blocking trafic right after you pull off a robery an is stoopid. Not to mention arguing with the cop about using the sidwalk.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-08-19 12:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

"I believe there is brutality, but everyday? I doubt it."

Depends what you mean by everday. Every day by the same cop? Doesn't seem possible. Every day somewhere in the US? No doubt. Hell, I'm sure there are plenty of US cities where there is some incident of unlawful police violence almost every day.

I do believe that there are cops who overstep their bounds almost every day - even if its just giving an unlawful order. People with that sense of entitlement don't take time off from being jackasses.

#9 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-19 12:15 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 3

Blaming video for killing trust is like blaming the victim for hitting the cops fist with his face over and over.

There is no reason to beat on a citizen that is handcuffed and lying on the ground, yet we continue to see those videos.

If you as a law enforcement professional cannot stem your desire to get a few in while you got a perp subdued, you should not be a police officer.

Let's put cameras on all police cars.

Many departments are skipping that and putting cameras right on the police officers if nothing more than to capture the entire encounter with a perp rather than just the last five minutes of the beating.

Now I am not saying that everyone that get's beat by the police deserve it, but recording the entire interaction with police has caused a large number of charges of police abuse to be rescinded when the people claiming so are informed there is video of the encounter.

#10 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-19 12:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Video will save us money in the long run.

I don't trust the cops or the scum they deal with on a daily basis.

I'd bet if a video came out showing brown to be at fault there would still be looting and destruction.
Hell, they specifically targeted the store where brown committed the strong armed robbery. Why? Because they lack any self control or civilized thought.

#11 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-08-19 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

#7 | Posted by AndreaMackris
There IS brutality everyday both by police officers and suspects for sure. How often does an officer commit an act of brutality? Even the worst of the bad ones certainly not daily though.

I am personally for officer mounted cameras as well. There is then a record of the interaction. Defense goes both ways in that regard. I don't know if head mounted or torso mounted makes sense though. Head - you would almost see what the officer can see. Put it this way, officers and prosecutors are extremely eager to use such video evidence against anyone and everyone and understandably so - even when out of context. Officer and 360 car cams would be in context of events...

Video killed trust in police? No. Plenty knew about the brutality before. It just woke up those that lived in denial or never had the pleasure of interacting with them.

#12 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-08-19 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

What is happening in Ferguson reminds me of the 1968 Dem convention and the resulting "police riot".

Shows of force have resulted only in a heightening of tension and more violence (which was answered with violence). The folks in Cincinnati, LA, and Birmingham can attest to that.

Protect the businesses, but let the people march and vent.

Ken

#13 | Posted by kenmidkiff at 2014-08-19 01:30 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Fascism.

#14 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-19 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd bet if a video came out showing brown to be at fault there would still be looting and destruction.
Hell, they specifically targeted the store where brown committed the strong armed robbery. Why? Because they lack any self control or civilized thought.
#11 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Knowing this, why do you continue to favor heavy-handed tactics?

The logical conclusion is you're trolling them. You're provoking them with the hopes they respond in anger, to justify further oppression.

If there's a better explanation I'd like to hear it.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-19 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I do believe that there are cops who overstep their bounds almost every day

During a routine traffic stop I was asked if I minded if the police officer searched the car.

When police practice is to ask people in routine traffic stops to give up their rights, I don't understand how anyone could have any trust or respect for the police. I don't mean the officers, I mean the mission and the way it's carried out. What sort of a police force in the course of their business routinely asks the population it serves if they'd like to give up their rights? How about you just go about doing your job while respecting my rights?

It seems to me like if they're truly rights, I shouldn't be able to waive them in the first place. At least not outside the oversight of a judge.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-19 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I do believe that there are cops who overstep their bounds almost every day

Especially the one's who charged someone with "destruction of government property" for bleeding on their uniforms as they beat him.

#17 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-19 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

During a routine traffic stop I was asked if I minded if the police officer searched the car.

How did you answer?

90% of Americans would be scared into allowing it.

#18 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-19 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Don't worry guys, 101 and Dix will be here soon enough to explain why those thugs deserved the beatings they received from the police.

101 will also suggest bringing in the KKK as peacekeepers.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-19 02:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well I thought the question itself was troubling because he didn't ask for consent, or if he could search, he asked if I minded if he searched. Not really the same thing.

But I knew what he was getting at. My exact words were "Well, I don't consent to a search."

I didn't hear this part but he asked a passenger what's in those bags? Our clothes was the response.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-19 02:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why? Because they lack any self control or civilized thought.
#11 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

Who is "they" exactly? You're obviously referring to an entire group of people beyond those that committed the crime on the store. So who are you referring to in such a general, veiled sense?

#21 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 02:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because they lack any self control or civilized thought.
#11 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

"Those savages! I do declare them to be uncivilized!!

harumph harumph!"

~PinkyFingerInTheAirBorne.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-19 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Who is "they" exactly?

Anyone with a lighter complexion than him.

which is everyone since he's an albino.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2014-08-19 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

It seems to me like if they're truly rights, I shouldn't be able to waive them in the first place. At least not outside the oversight of a judge.
#16 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It's a come for you to lie to law enforcement, but it's not a crime for law enforcement to lie to you. ESPECIALLY about your rights.

That's truly a shame. And you're right. It's not the officers themselves ("few bad apples") it's the system and the way they are trained. They are told to lie and manipulate people in order to fulfill their duty. What is there duty? Definitely more than to just "protect and serve." Ticket quotas and the prison industrial complex amount to a system that sets its police force, and communities it patrols, up for failure.

#24 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

come=crime

#25 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a great video that which I implore everyone to watch. A lawyer AND a police officer explain why it's in YOUR best interest not to speak with an officer.


It all makes VERY much sense. Especially the part about "Do not ever tell an officer what location you are coming from. For all you know a terrible crime was committed in that exact area and you just might fit the description of a suspected criminal. You just implicated yourself in the crime by your indication that you had just recently frequented the area in question."

#26 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've seen that video.

I'm buying a dash cam.

We also got stopped by Border Patrol and sent to secondary because of a non-US citizen in the vehicle. I complied with the Feds mostly because I didn't want my rider to end up deported, despite being here entirely legally, you just never know. And not really being sure of what they can legally ask and what they can't.

The thing is, by answering all of the cop's questions I did end up with just a fix-it ticket, much better for me than the failure to stop for which justified the police intervention. It's like a miniature version of the plea to a lesser charge rather than fight the long fight gets played out during a traffic stop.

"Play ball and it's better for you" is not a hallmark of a free country. We have dug ourselves into a significant hole with this War on Drugs and War on Undocumented Workers.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-19 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It's like a miniature version of the plea to a lesser charge rather than fight the long fight gets played out during a traffic stop.

Disgusting, yes. And yes I have seen instances where the cops will hassle people just because they are attempting to invoke their rights.

You don't want to answer my question? I'll hold you here for over an hour while I "confirm your information." The cops will actually sit there and wait in the hope that you slip up. They don't like the idea of people knowing Cops are allowed to be manipulating, lying bastards just to help fill State funds. It's not about justice anymore, it's about money and self-interest. It's an "us v. them" environment created and maintained by the system itself. And people wonder why the nonwhite community has such a hard time with the police. Their experiences are compounded by the prevalent racism within the CJS.

I'm white and I still don't trust the cops.

And yes, I too will be getting a dash cam. Regardless, I plan on videoing EVERY incident I see or experience involving police officers. I live in San Diego, CA and the SDPD has a VERY poor reputation right now considering the rash of sexual assault investigations involving SDPD officers.

#28 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 03:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Fascism.

#14 | POSTED BY SHAWN AT 2014-08-19 01:38 PM | FLAG:

I see he's consolidated all his posts finally.

#29 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-08-19 04:22 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

"We have dug ourselves into a significant hole with this War on Drugs and War on Undocumented Workers.

#27 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-08-19 03:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG

Hard to make up such a comedy routine.

#30 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-19 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Hard to make up such a comedy routine.
#30 | Posted by RobThomas

No harder than using taxpayer dollars to make militarization of the police a national priority.

The part where those who say "this is going in the wrong direction" are pilloried for being soft on crime "apologists" is textbook character assassination propaganda. (That's the part you seem happiest to play, by the way.)

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-19 06:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#31 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2014-08-19 06:05 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

It is easy to make excuses for people who take ZERO responsibility for their actions. There is an entire industry that does it. The "leaders" all live very comfortable lifestyles and show up when they can profit from a issue. Usually it involves some type of white/black issue. They never appear or have any solutions to stop the black/black issues. Those that apologize for them are just as bad. All fakes. All political driven. All excuse makers. All victims in their worlds.

#32 | Posted by RobThomas at 2014-08-19 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

The part where those who say "this is going in the wrong direction" are pilloried for being soft on crime "apologists" is textbook character assassination propaganda. (That's the part you seem happiest to play, by the way.)
#31 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Soft on crime seems to be trending: Crime is a low concern; only 2% of voters rate crime or drugs/alcohol as the most important problem facing their state. www.saferfoundation.org

#33 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

[In the past two decades], violent crime has dropped and dropped. As a result, public attitudes have softened. The percentage of Americans who favor the death penalty for murderers, which hit 80 percent in 1994, fell to 60 percent last year. Even more importantly, crime has virtually disappeared as a political issue. In 1994, according to the University of Albany, 37 percent of Americans cited crime or violence as the "most important problem facing the country." By 2012, it was [TWO!!!] percent. www.theatlantic.com

#34 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

In 1994, according to the University of Albany, 37 percent of Americans cited crime or violence as the "most important problem facing the country." By 2012, it was [TWO!!!] percent. www.theatlantic.com

#34 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Fascinating.

The biggest problem with "crime", at least of the non-violent variety, is that our federal, state and local governments are, at an ever-increasing rate, making more and more fairly innocuous acts into criminal acts and are taking what many would deem to be insignificant crimes and making them into borderline felonies with the penalties.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-19 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Just wait for the full adoption of driverless cars. The State pulls in BILLIONS of dollars in traffic fines. Once that resource is dried up by AI-run autos, you will see that ever-increasing rate be compounded.

Robot economy be DAMNED!

#36 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 06:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just wait for the full adoption of driverless cars. The State pulls in BILLIONS of dollars in traffic fines. Once that resource is dried up by AI-run autos, you will see that ever-increasing rate be compounded.

No kidding.

I remember a few years back when hybrids became popular a couple of states added a premium to the license-plate tab fees due to lost fuel pump tax revenues due to more frugal consumption.

Drunk driving is a bad thing, but the definition of 'drunk' has become so expanded that a casual night of drinking is now a criminal act with HUGE consequences should one get pulled over for just about anything and the cop decides that a PBT is 'warranted'.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-19 07:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

#37 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2014-08-19 07:06 PM | FLAG: NEWSWORTHY

#38 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

All those calling for increased use of dash and body cams for police would do well to remember that, while these can great tools for promoting transparency in police departments, they also turn police into am even more effective mechanism of mass surveillance.

#39 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2014-08-19 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#37

This is just another way that state and local governments shift their costs onto the backs of poorer citizens who are more frequently targeted for violations that don't receive the same enforcement priorities in wealthier areas. Since taxes can't be raised to provide for the minimum needs of the community, other manners of fundraising have filled the void.

If we actually taxed progressively as we used to, these tactics wouldn't be necessary, but this is the beast that now must be fed. Far too often burdening the lives of poorer people are the price we pay for lower taxes on the wealthy. A $300 ticket is a hindrance to the more affluent, but it's an impossibility to the poor. And non-compliance leads to suspended licenses and they lead to court costs and maybe jailtime. It's a vicious cycle that must be broken before it breaks our cities and communities.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-19 07:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

#40

I agree with most of what you said.

However, I don't think a graduated-scale for traffic offenses works and it might even be in blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause - not that you are necessarily advocating such things.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-19 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#37 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yeah, probably. Used to be .15, then .10, now .08, will probably go to .05 along with most other nations (even the wine swilling Frenchies) and some of those are even less (ie, Sweden is .02)

#42 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-08-19 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#42 | POSTED BY LOHOCLA

I've seen people get DUI after one drink. It's really all circumstantial and also based on how much evidence you provide them. Remember, not a single one of the road side tests is obligatory.

If they pull you out of the car, they already have probable cause for an arrest. Everything post exit of vehicle only builds the case against you.

#43 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

HOWEVER!

That doesn't mean there are not consequences for simply refusing roadside sobriety tests. In most (?) states, DMV automatically revokes your license for one year if you refuse roadside sobriety test - even if it's found that you are completely sober.

#44 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

#39 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

How? The cameras won't see anything more than the cops' own eyes. A cops' eyes is a form of surveillance. The camera's "reach" won't be any further than that of a police officer's own eyes.

#45 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 07:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Far too often burdening the lives of poorer people are the price we pay for lower taxes on the wealthy

To this I offer a couple of counters:

1. The federal income tax code, based upon rates, is very progressive. The problems lie in the complexity and, as Simpson-Bowles showed, BOTH Democrats and Republicans agree on this. A purification of the tax-code coupled with, dare I say it, revenue-neutral corresponding tax rates would alleviate some of this. Also, at least as it pertains to how much the wealthy contribute to tax revenues from the federal income tax, the scale is beyond progressive.

2. Property taxes are also progressive - the higher the property-value the higher the tax.

3. Consumption and 'sin taxes' run the full gambit - they can be moderately progressive - to neutral - to seriously regressive.

IMO - our combined governments, particularly the federal government, do WAY too much. All of this costs trillions of dollars. People expect their tax-dollars to provide tangible services. When governments try to take on too much, taxpayers begin to seriously question how their money, that was taken by force, is being spent.

That government at all levels need to universally stoop to disgusting tactics and obfuscations regarding how they raise revenues to fund their priorities is a strong indication that governments in this country are trying to over-extend their powers.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-19 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I know a guy who simply refused the breathalyzer and let them impound his car and take his license for two years. That was a much better alternative than getting another DUI.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-19 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#40 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Who make up the only group that ends up in JAIL for nonpayment of traffic fines?

#48 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 07:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

1. The federal income tax code, based upon rates, is very progressive.

There's more to taxation that income tax, and most of it is regressive. The net is a barely progressive system.

Taxes are geared to income; any substantive discussion of who bears the burden of taxation must look at wealth. And that's a lot harder to do.

Just looking at income, though, www.washingtonpost.com "U.S. tax code isn't as progressive as you think"
TL, DR version here, www.theatlantic.com

The bottom 80 percent of the income distribution pays less than their share of income, but not a whole lot less. And interestingly, the 20th through 60th percentiles get a bigger break than the poorest 20 percent. The tax code has a bias for the middle-class over the poor, in other words.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-19 07:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

If they pull you out of the car, they already have probable cause for an arrest. Everything post exit of vehicle only builds the case against you.
#43 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Oh yea, and it's the Fifth Amendment that protects you from the above (self-incrimination).

#50 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't think a graduated-scale for traffic offenses works
#41 | Posted by JeffJ

Define "works." Do you think the current flat rate system works? I see that it fleeces people, and it lets insurance companies do the same. It works pretty well at that...

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-19 07:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Define "works." Do you think the current flat rate system works? I see that it fleeces people, and it lets insurance companies do the same. It works pretty well at that...

#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

There is no easy answer. Indexing traffic and other legal fines to income doesn't take accrued wealth into account.

Creating some kind of 'wealth tax' is horrendous and would backfire big-time.

This entire discussion boils back to an issue that I've been raising for a while now - our 'transparent' taxes are insufficient to fund our various tiers of government. Hence the need for sin and 'criminal' taxes at the lower levels and limitless entitlements, borrowing, deficits and debt at the federal level.

Government needs to be funded at all levels. Period. That government at all levels has to engage in all of these shenanigans tells me that these various government entities cannot sell ALL of their services to those who actually provide the funding.

Let's chunk it up to the federal level - fund it. Period. If federal outlays are so critical then tax accordingly. Of course, this will result in a much bigger burden for the middle class and even a bit more a of burden for the poor. Fine. If big-government is so critical to our society, be honest about its costs and tax accordingly. If the taxpayers push back then let the chips fall where they may.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-19 08:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

@#45

Cameras are sharper than eyes, do not blink, and produce a lasting record which in turn can be compiled and sorted electronically in order to gain all sorts of information that mere eye witness accounts could never produce. Likewise, unlike eyes, cameras produce data that people believe, while witnesses lie or misremember.

www.aclu.org

#53 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2014-08-19 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

If big-government is so critical to our society, be honest about its costs and tax accordingly. If the taxpayers push back then let the chips fall where they may.

The biggest lie ever is the one where per capita the benefits of government go overwhelmingly to the poorer citizens and thus maintaining our former safety net levels is deleterious to our economic health. The tax burden has been shifted for decades from business and wealthier citizens toward the middle and lower classes. We already know where the last three decades of economic gains have gone, so there really is little mystery why our current needs go unmet.

The working classes have been paying their freight while the investor class has largely skated free as they continue to utilize the tremendously expensive legal and regulatory systems that enable them to function and profit. Not to mention that our overseas use of our military insures that commerce and contracts are fulfilled. It isn't always about protecting our freedoms as it is about protecting the corporation's markets and profits.

In my opinion, why should the taxpayers continue to fund governmental entities that only exist to serve and regulate business and finance? Why shouldn't there be a transaction tax on every financial move? Why should investors and speculators be subsidized when the average citizen will never use the bureaucracy built to sustain their businesses? I get it that some serve a useful purpose, but why should all the machinations of this wealth creation -- currently going to individuals and corporations who have no interest in forwarding what's best for the nation as a whole and it's people -- not be charged back to these same people as a cost of utilization? We shutter public services every single day, but I've yet to see the financial sector to have their concerns ignored especially when they threaten to nuke the economy.

There are many more ways we can tax those who need the greatest protections and utilize far more government than they currently pay for. Even if the costs are shifted towards goods and services, at least we can show progress on paper and in the lives of the hundreds of millions not currently in the upper percentiles.

#54 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-19 08:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

#53 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

So be it. Although, the benefits curtailing bad behavior on the part of cops and undermining fallacious accusations on parts of citizens against cops far outweigh the risks associated with an invasion of privacy as you have described it.

#55 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 09:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Rstybeach...

You click the dropdown in the flag box, choose and then hit reload. That is how you register a flag.

#56 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-19 09:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is how you register a flag.
#56 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

How in the hell did you know I was clueless to as much?

#57 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 09:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#57

Because post #37 doesn't have a flag showing and you posted #38.

And I noticed it on other threads too. I don't think you're the only one. I discovered it by accident about a decade ago. Somebody should mention it to RCade and he can put instructions on the Flagged Comment page.

#58 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-19 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks.

#59 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2014-08-19 10:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

No harder than using taxpayer dollars to make militarization of the police a national priority.
The part where those who say "this is going in the wrong direction" are pilloried for being soft on crime "apologists" is textbook character assassination propaganda. (That's the part you seem happiest to play, by the way.)

#31 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

#60 | Posted by DixvilleNotch at 2014-08-20 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

Q: Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like "civilian national security force"?

A: This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.

www.factcheck.org

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-20 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

If people didn't act 'stoopid' around the cops there would be a lot less trouble.

Walking down the middle of the street and blocking trafic right after you pull off a robery an is stoopid. Not to mention arguing with the cop about using the sidwalk.

#8 | Posted by Sniper

Isn't it great we don't normally shoot white people for being "stoopid".

I bet YOUR momma is real happy about that anyway.

#62 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-20 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort