Pixiq

Self-restraint of the Only Ones is difficult:

1. Cops beating the shit out of people.
2. Teachers fucking school kids. (see this huge list http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=39783)
3. Members of Parliament expensing their dildos.
4. Towns shortening yellow lights so their redlights are more profitable, even if there are more wrecks.
5. Taxing the hell out of everything.

Why? One word.

Hierarchy.

Egalitarianism is an essential part of human nature; it is the very thing that led to our humanity, and remains an undeniable yearning in the human spirit that continues to shape our political fortunes (see thesis #7). Hierarchy is the antithesis of that, and thus, we cannot avoid the inescapable conclusion that hierarchy itself is dehumanizing and maladapted to the human condition…

Hierarchy’s need to crush all alternatives is what makes it “evil,” because it is driven to wipe out all diversity besides itself. The ultimate driving force behind this is the simple fact that hierarchy does not work well for people. They must be somehow “forced” into it–meaning that all alternatives must be systematically eradicated, or hierarchy will be abandoned by the lowest ranks, the ones that are, simultaneously, most needed by hierarchy, and have the least to gain from it.

From: Thesis #11: Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil.
http://anthropik.com/thirty/

Carlos, the interesting thing about cameras is they don’t change behaviour for long. Initially people are concerned about having a camera watching them and are on their best behavior. But after a while they acclimatize to the camera and their behaviour returns to what’s normal for them. Robbers will rob, shoplifters will shoplift, violent people will be violent.

So while cameras promise increase security and reduce crime all they end up doing is providing evidence of what happened.

These 5 cops aren’t acting any differently then they are programmed to act or how they would have chosen to act in any other situation. The only difference is that now we know how they acted and they can’t lie about it.

One of the good things about these cameras is that as the cameras and storage continues to get cheaper in accordance with Moore’s Law we will see more and more of them. There will be no question about how was the criminal and who behaved criminally in the future.

Note to Carlos Miller: Your post is more about Big Brother versus Little Brother than the specifics of the Anthony Warren case. However, I thought I’d ask two questions: Am I the only person who’s reminded of the Martin Lee Anderson murder by the current case? And why were the officers involved fired, when this kind of thing usually results in no consequences at all?

For the benefit of people who aren’t familiar with the Martin Lee Anderson case, seven guards stomped an unconscious 14-year-old youth to death in 2006. They were tried for manslaughter, but they were acquitted by an all-white jury on the grounds that since the victim was black, he must have died of sickle-cell anemia.

That’s how it works most of the time. Occasionally, actual murders are caught right on video (the Anderson killing among them), and the video usually doesn’t make a difference.

What’s different in the Anthony Warren case? He wasn’t even killed, so I’m surprised that any action was taken. I haven’t watched the video, so I don’t know the color of Mr. Warren’s skin. That might be a factor. Is he white, and is that why the case was taken seriously? Or have things changed for the better in the three short years since Martin Lee Anderson was murdered?

I don’t see this at all like the Martin Lee Anderson case.

Anderson was a 14-year-old kid who was thrown in a juvenile detention camp because had been caught joyriding in his grandmother’s car.

He was a non-violent teen who never threatening the guards.

He was murdered.

On the other hand, Anthony Warren was recklessly fleeing from the cops. He tried to run a cop over. He would have run me and you over if he had the chance.

And he wasn’t murdered.

Warren is black. And the mayor is black. And he has already made it a racial thing by talking about how racist cop were back in the day in Birmingham.

But honestly, I think they would have beat him just as bad if he was white.

This blog seems to be less and less about photographer’s rights and more and more one man’s personal tirade about cops.

DP,

Let me guess. Now I am a “cop hater”?

Note to Carlos Miller: You’re correct about the fundamental differences between the two cases. However, you might be making one of my points for me.

The officers involved in the Warren case had more justification than the guards in the Anderson case, if actions of this type can ever be said to be justified. Somebody who referred to the Warren case on another thread said that the officers were simply using “distraction” blows. He was joking, but I’m surprised that no attempt was made to put out a cover story of this type or to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Obviously, the video helped, but there’s got to be more to it than that. In the past, it was unusual for police officers or guards to face consequences for their actions, regardless of the circumstances. Video didn’t seem to make much of a difference. Maybe times are changing. We’ll see.

P.S. Maybe Disgusted Photographer is talking about me or one of the others. We’ve all been called cop bashers, cop haters, clowns, idiot liberals, strident, narrow-minded, etc.   And, don’t forget, we “never talk about the good cops” because we’re too busy focusing on the “few bad apples”. It doesn’t matter that people like Serpico are personal heroes to me and to many others.

When there’s little doubt that Warren attempted to kill a cop in cold blood it’s hard for me to have any sympathy for his treatment. I’m one to almost always side with a citizen when it comes to police abuse of force. I just hope if anyone tried to run one of my loved ones down the most I lose is my job, because I’m likely to lose my cool too. Yes, it’s hard to be professional situations like these, but it’s times like these we need police to conduct themselves with professionalism. It costs tax money to pay settlements and it cost tax money to train cops to replace them. That being said. I think Warren is a piece of shit for trying to do what he did.

If it’s ok for police to mete out “justice” after a hot pursuit why do they always try and stop family members of murder or rape victims from throwing down distraction blows of their own in the courtroom?

How many of you have seen the footage of the dad who lay in wait at a bank of pay phones in the airport when the guy who raped his son was being extradited? The camera showed him turning around and putting a bullet right in that guy’s brain. He was taken to trial even though a lot of people thought him justified. I don’t recall the outcome and I’m feeling too lazy to check it out but I know they didn’t throw him under the jail.

So here’s my point: Why don’t we bring more cops to court (and to account) and let jury nullification play out? If these officers choose they can explain their actions to a jury.

I remember a commedian talking about what it must be like for inmates in jail watching hockey games on TV. He said the inmates are saying to themselves-I got two years for what that guy just did and he’s only getting two minutes in the penalty box!

I guess my only smart ass comment about the Birmingham police would be to say that they need to update their CPR literature.

I was impressed by the actions of the Chief and the Mayor when I first saw this story on CNN.

Now, not so much. I learned the incident happened some 15 months ago on Jan. 23, 2008. The prosecutors for the district attorney of Jefferson County, Brandon Falls, found the tape in March (some 12 months ago) while preparing their case against Mr. Warren, who received a 20-year sentence for first-degree assault for hitting an officer with his van in the chase. Very deserved too as far as I am concerned.

But the tape was not made public until today, Does the timing of the release of tape have anything to with the filing of Warren’s claim? Color me surprised if the two are not related.

Since the prosecutors have had the tape since March of 08 what have the officers been doing in the mean time? Were they on duty? On paid administrative leave? On unpaid leave? Oh wait here is a quote from the article “Many officers and supervisors in the police department viewed the video in the past year but did not report it, the authorities said.” Leading to “In addition to these terminations, we’re also reviewing our supervisor’s actions, reporting mechanisms and policies.” Seems the prosecutors did not see any need to tell anyone about the beating either. While 5 of the officers have now been fired they may still appeal their terminations.

Taping or photographing things only makes a difference when the tapes and pictures are seen by those with an interest in making the needed changes. It seems that did not include much of the police force or the officers of the court in this case.

Note to JoyLeaf: Is that “JoyLeaf” as in Cutter’s mother, and Sunstream and Ember’s grandmother?

Note to Carlos Miller: JoyLeaf has answered one of my questions. The answer is that things haven’t changed after all.

fucking loser cops got what they deserved, finally!

Note to “the bulldog”: No. They’ll appeal the terminations. The most likely outcome is that they’ll be given generous “medical discharges” in exchange for going away quietly. The taxpayers will be billed for the benefits involved.

On a separate note, if people tell me to stop complaining about epithets, I might do so. However, I believe these forums would work better without them. Let the apologists be the ones who come across as “bashers”. Don’t make it easy for people to dismiss the points that are made here.

I’m just surprised that the guy wasn’t shot for trying to kill another officer…

I really would not have been surprised to see that in this video.

I believe they held back even though they dealt that idiot a good well deserved beating.

Do I think they should have hit him though? No.

VOR I take it you are an ElfQuest fan too. Yes that is where the nickname came from. Not sure why my friends started using it for me. I think I am more of a Foxfur. Any way it stuck and I have been using it since 1980 .

Alabama has very corrupt police. Many of the smaller county Sheriffs are in on the drug trade, and there is little oversight on police abuse. I was in the process of filing a lawsuit against the local Sheriff a few years back when several attorneys advised me not to, otherwise I might have drugs ‘found’ in my vehicle.

This sort of stuff almost never makes the news. I’m glad the B’ham cops were caught red-handed.

This beating was entirely justified and I applaud the police for doing it. You don’t know what this guy’s mental state is after being thrown from the car, he could be playing dead and concealing a weapon underneath him, which he could then use against the officers. Therefore, it was necessary for those officers to subdue him immediately with surprise blows in order to guarantee the safety of all involved.

/jones

Note to JoyLeaf: You said, “I take it you are an ElfQuest fan too. Yes that is where the nickname came from. Not sure why my friends started using it for me. I think I am more of a Foxfur. Any way it stuck and I have been using it since 1980.”

Not a fan, exactly. However, I’ve read a wider range of things than most people. I followed the original series around 1980 myself. It was an early independent, significant for that reason, and it was different from anything that was being published in the mainstream at the time.

Most people will find references to the series obscure, but for a while it looked as though there was going to be a movie version. I believe it was supposed to focus on Ember. Disney had started to make movies about strong heroines by then, but Ember would have given Disney’s characters a run for their money. I don’t remember any of the Disney women chopping trolls up before breakfast. Come to think of it, we could use somebody who knows how to deal with trolls here.  

Double-checking the record, I see that Joyleaf and Foxfur were both killed by Madcoil. You should probably try to avoid large insane mythological hybrids.

You should imagine me as somebody who would have been pleased to be thought of as Skywise, but who actually had the social graces of Cutter, the personal warmth of Rayek, and the mental stability of Aurek.  

I agree with Disgusted Photographer.

This site once seemed to be about opening a dialog with cops to better inform them of photographers’ rights. The articles seemed to be primarily about police/photographer disputes. There were some cops posting comments. The give and take was heated at times but mostly civil.

Now there are many articles that have nothing to do with a photographer’s rights. This Alabama piece is a good example. What is the purpose in publishing this here? I agree with some of the cops who have been posting in the comments. This seems to be turning into an anti-law enforcement site. Posting articles that have nothing to do with photographers’ rights emphasizes that.

At the same time, the comments from both sides here have become much more vitriolic, too.

Conditions won’t improve by belittling the police or by mocking them. Insults and slurs will only turn them against photographers. For every cop who may have been educated about a photographer’s rights on this site, now many more have every reason to be anti-photographer.

I’ve worked as a journalist since the mid-1980s. I’ve found that dialog is a far better way to communicate than condemnation and belittling. I have a good working relationship with the local police departmentsbecause I don’t trash them. I respect them, and they in turn respect me. If a cop is out of line, I won’t hesitate to report on it, but I don’t take a strident attitude when it isn’t necessary. Most journalists I know do the same.

It’s your site so you can do whatever you want. However, I think you’re doing more harm than good here now, and I think you’re harming other journalists in the process. This site now seems stridently anti-law enforcement. If that’s what you want, it’s your business. But you may want to listen to constructive criticism and not get your back up so quickly when people have suggestions. If you dish it out, you should be prepared to take it, both emotionally and professionally.

My $0.02.

Now there are many articles that have nothing to do with a photographer’s rights. This Alabama piece is a good example. What is the purpose in publishing this here? I agree with some of the cops who have been posting in the comments. This seems to be turning into an anti-law enforcement site. Posting articles that have nothing to do with photographers’ rights emphasizes that.

I completely disagree. Suppressing photographers’ rights is a symptom of a much more fundamental problem: That is, the view by many in law enforcement that the law does not apply to them.

There is a prevailing attitude out there that whatever the officer does or says is law. If you think calling cops on that is cop-bashing, well then that in and of itself is a problem.

I would also note that in this particular post, Carlos makes a point about how cameras protect both officer and citizen, and thus cops shouldn’t react with hostility when they see a camera.

On that particular point I would disagree since a cop has more to lose than to gain from a camera since his word is good enough in court in the absence of a camera. But that’s besides the point.

It’s really striking how I get accused of operating “an anti-cop” site when all I am doing is presenting the facts of incidents that have taken place.

In this incident, the video speaks for itself. As do many of the incidents I write about.

This is an example of why it is important that we are not intimidated from taking photos or shooting video.

This is an example of the importance of maintaining government transparency.

All I ask for is professionalism from police, just as I hope journalists maintain their professionalism.

Those who accuse me of being “anti-cop” because I demand police to abide by the law are the ones showing their true bias.

I present the facts as well as I can. And I also provide my opinion along with these facts. And I am very clear which is which.

And I allow my readers to present their opinions, regardless of where they stand.

Most of the articles on this site pertain to photography or videography. If you can’t see how this article pertains to videography, then you are blind.

The reason I write about these incidents, even though they might not pertain directly to some schmuck with a camera getting harassed, is because I like to show how some cops act when they think they are not on camera.

This, to me, is one of the reasons why they have such a huge issue with being photographed or filmed.

It is, as Xdamousex says, part of the prevailing attitude that cops are above the law.

And for the first time in history, we are becoming an eye witness to this attitude on an almost daily basis.

As for the comments, I try to encourage my readers to remain respectful. But I try not to censor my readers either.

For many, this is the only place where they are able to share their thoughts with a LEO without fear of getting arrested or beaten up.

And I know that unsettles some LEOs because they feel they have no control of the situation, like they usually do.

But the only thing that is flung here are words, words that any officer worth his badge has heard hundreds of times before.

I am not anti-cop. Believe it or not, I actually get along well with cops in person when they are not barking unlawful orders. I’ve always maintained that cops are working-class people, no different than I am.

But there have been more than a few times where I have clashed with police only because of my camera.

If I get pulled over for speeding or running a light, I accept the punishment. Grudgingly, maybe, but respectfully.

But if I get harassed or threatened for taking photos, then I don’t accept that order so willingly.

And when I did that in Feb. 2007, not only did I end up arrested, but the cops physically abused me.

And they lied about the whole thing. Under oath.

So no, this site is not just about photographers’ rights. This site is also about documenting police abuses. Especially those that are caught on camera.

And while you might think these are two completely separate issues, I find it impossible to separate the two.

I agree with Texas Journalist (on one point) and with xdamousex.

Texas Journalist is right about “vitriolic” posts. For some reason, he didn’t speak up when it was mostly LEO apologists doing the bashing. However, this doesn’t change the fact that people should focus more on rational discussion or at least on rational arguments.

xdamousex is right about the “fundamental problem”. From my point of view, this may be the “Photography is Not a Crime” site, but “photographer’s rights” don’t exist in a vacuum. First Amendment issues, law enforcement issues, and national events are part of the picture. Mr. Miller’s posts raise serious questions related to these issues.

It’s funny how we all want free speech. How we all claim we support the First Amendment.

But when it comes to “vitriolic” comments – or more specifically, statements we don’t agree with – then we shut ourselves down and don’t want to hear anymore.

Has anybody considered that perhaps these people who are making these comments are not criminals, but law-abiding citizens who have lost all respect for police?

Who have perhaps had bad experiences with police?

Has anybody wondered why they might feel such contempt for cops, even if they are not criminals?

It’s easy to say you’ve never had an issue with cops when you happen to be a “yes sir, no sir” type of person, even when you are being ordered to do something that is completely within your right.

But some of us know our rights and are not afraid to question the badge.

And some of us are not afraid to point out when cops abuse their power.

And some of us are just damn sick and tired of these ongoing police abuses – even if they have nothing to do with a camera.

As I’ve mentioned, this site is very open to comments, unlike many other sites. I don’t moderate. I rarely delete comments.

And I’ve never banned anybody for having a different opinion – unlike many of the cop forums.

Therefore, everybody is free to respond to any comment they don’t agree with.

If you don’t like the “vitriolic” comments, then do what I do.

Ignore them and respond to the comments that do provide a legitimate debate.

Rights aren’t taken overnight. They are eroded over time.

If you think the best response to bullying is to capitulate to it, then you are just contributing to the decline of those rights.

Note to Carlos Miller: You said, It’s funny how we all want free speech. How we all claim we support the First Amendment. But when it comes to “vitriolic” comments – or more specifically, statements we don’t agree with – then we shut ourselves down and don’t want to hear anymore.

A while back, you told me that I shouldn’t have chased away somebody who wanted to talk about 9/11 Truth issues. Since then, I’ve applauded your willingness to “put your money where your mouth is” and to encourage open discussions on your own site. I’ve relied on the tolerance that you’ve shown myself.

If I comment on the tone that discussions have taken recently, I’m exercising the right (or, in the context of a private site, the privilege) that you yourself support and agree with.

Some people on the various “sides” are interested primarily in bashing or venting, and some people are interested in making worthwhile points. In many cases, people seem to believe that they can have it both ways. I’ve pointed out repeatedly that saying things like “f*** the ****ing idiot loser ***ers” is going to lead people to dismiss the more carefully-reasoned arguments that somebody might be trying to set forth.

I’m right about this, and I say this as somebody who posted a statement similar to “f*** the police” myself a week or two back.

If nobody is interested in my advice, and I’m aware that this is likely to be the case, they’re free to ignore me, as you yourself have pointed out. While I remain at the site, I’ll continue to urge people who seem to be stuck in the territory between basher-automaton and sentient being to think about their arguments and to move towards rationality. For what it’s worth, I’ll direct my comments to people on all of the programmed “sides”.

I live in Birmingham and it helps if you know the facts first. This high speed chase went on for 22 MINUTES as the drug suspect nearly missed school buses, other people on the road and the police officer. According to law, the vehicle he was driving is classified as a “deadly weapon” and deadly force may be used to protect the public. Just the same as if he was shooting a gun. Once the car flipped the officers were shouting at him to show them his hands (of course you do not get the audio version on the dash cam). They were not aware he was unconscious and took the necessary actions to get him into custody. I’m not condoning beating an unconscious man but he should count himself lucky that the officers showed RESTRAINT by not shooting him while he was driving (which would have been justified by law). Let’s not forget that this man is NOT the victim here, but a drug crazed criminal that could have killed many innocent people. It’s easy to judge from the stands.

two wrongs dont make a right! the badge means you’re held to a higher standard! they should ROT!

Note to the bulldog: You said, “two wrongs don’t make a right!”

This is a valid point. However, be advised that most apologists reject this point. As a rule, it doesn’t register for them.

Note to Avery: You said, “They were not aware he was unconscious and took the necessary actions to get him into custody”.

“Necessary actions” ? Regardless of what the audio shows, or doesn’t show, you’re working backwards to construct a narrative that seems appropriate to you. This kind of thing has nothing to do with subduing dangerous suspects, and you’re aware of this, whether or not you’ll admit it.

It’s common for chases to end this way. In fact, it’s so common that some departments discourage chases these days because it’s embarrassing to have footage of this type turn up. Am I mistaken about this?

As far as the need for caution WRT unresisting or unconscious people goes, you may wish to read up on the Tyisha Miller case, the Robbie Tolan case, and other cases where the police actually shot unresisting or unconscious people who were threatening them due to the wicked and willful way in which they didn’t move at all. I’d like to hear more about how the police are focused on “necessary actions” in cases of this type.

Texas, why is it “stridently anti-law enforcement” to report the truth and call a spade a spade? Must the author include a 5 page diatribe singing the praises of the so called good cops? Did it occur to you that (due to your profession) you’re getting better treatment from the cops then the average citizen, even when they desperately need help?

http://www.policecrimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2511

“I think you’re harming other journalists in the process”

I think other journalists are harming the public by not reporting the extent of police corruption and by the pro cop propaganda they constantly perpetuate–calling them “heroes” ect. Too bad the “heroes” lack basic traits like honesty, integrity…

http://www.fresnobee.com/updates/story/1177687.html

“Conditions won’t improve by belittling the police or by mocking them. Insults and slurs will only turn them against photographers”

They are already against both photographers and the average Joe. See the “you’re just ignorant sheep” and “you don’t get to pick from a menu” comment Sheepdog made in the CA gang member thread. You’re operating on the false premise that the rude, power tripping cop is just misguided and only needs to be gently informed of the law, the right way to behave etc. No. Not only do they think they’re above the law, as others have pointed out, but many cops–just like the criminals—have a predatory mentality. They get their kicks by messing with people. Educating them on photographers rights won’t do a damn thing if the photog commits the worst offence of all, contempt of cops ego.

Why should the police get treated with kid gloves when they callously ruin lives with NO REMORSE? Read about the Marty Tankloff case out of Long Island, NY. This dumb cop decided he didn’t like Marty and flat out refused to investigate other likely suspects. Even after he was exonerated the self righteous PIG detective still cannot admit he made a mistake. Bad cops are not a minority nor are they just a nuisance.
BAD COPS ARE DANGEROUS.

Note to Anonymous: You said, “Must the author include a 5 page diatribe singing the praises of the so called good cops?”

It wouldn’t help. If you went along with this, the apologists would take it as an acknowledgement that the “few bad apples” argument is valid. However, as I’ve tried to explain several times, the “few bad apples” issue isn’t the point.

“Has anybody wondered why they might feel such contempt for cops, even if they are not criminals?”

The cop hating comments here are mild compared to the rest of the web. And yes, alot of us can understand why she’s so angry.

“MOST COPS ARE SELF SERVING EGOMANIACS ***** BREAK THE LAW SO ANY TIME A COP GETS KILLED I AM EXTRMELY HAPPY…IT IS POETIC JUSTICE. I HATE COPS. THE ONLY GOOD COP IS A DEAD ONE”

I could argue these angry rants serve a purpose in that they let cops know their buddies are out of control and people are fed up. Here’s a more interesting one:

“LET’S PUT IT THIS WAY, TAKE PLAYING CARDS, STACK THEM LIKE YOUR BUILDING A HOUSE. YOUR TASK FORCE (COPS) ARE AS STRONG AS THE BOTTOM MAN, SO IF YOU TAKE THE BOTTOM CARD (AN OFFICER)-WHICH IS CORRUPT, THEN THE WHOLE UNIT IS WEAK AND FALLS (BAD). ITS CALLED A TEAM, ONCE ONE SINGLE COP HAS A REPUTATION, THEN EVERYONE DOES. BEING GOOD OR BAD. AND IN THIS INSTANCE THE MAJORITY OF OFFICERS ABUSE THIER POWER AND TALK DOWN TO INDIVIDUALS LIKE THEY ARE DIRT. THERE SHOULD BE A WAY TO DEVELOP MANADATORY VIDEO AND VOICE RECORDING OF TRAFFIC PULL-OVER’S. AND THEN HAVE OUR RIGHT TO FILE A COMPLAINT FOR REVIEW IN COURT AT ANY TIME (PER OCCURANCE) AND AFFECT THIER SALARY. AS THEY SAY, IF IT DOESNT HURT THIER POCKET THEY DONT GIVE A F***”

This one’s interesting and relates to the topic. I think most cops kick and beat people for the “rush”, then lie and use the officer safety excuse.

“I am 73 years old and an X and retired cop. This is what pisses me off and always has. I was a cop because I wanted to be a cop. Not to protect the public but for the rush of being a cop. In all my years I never met or talked to a cop that was just doing it to protect the people. They just wanted to be a cop thats all. Like a fireman wants to be a fireman. To me it’s a very lazy job. I served three trips to Vient Nam, not to protect the USA but I did it for the rush I got out of it.Talk to any cop and ask him why he is a cop. None will tell you that they are doing it to protect you. They are doing it because they want to be a cop…”

http://autos.aol.com/article/read-police-officers-mind

vor:
In Iraq, my friend had a platoon mate get shot by a “dead” iraqi in the street. When they started harassing all Iraqis that night that weren’t being defiant, they broke the law and got court marshaled.

i’m wondering why the cops in the US aren’t held to the same standard, it’s only fair.

You’re right VOR.
I liken the few bad apples argument to telling a diner (who went to a fancy restaurant) to just ignore those “few bad cockroaches” on your plate…

Note to genewitch: You said, VOR: In Iraq, my friend had a platoon mate get shot by a “dead” Iraqi in the street. When they started harassing all Iraqis that night that weren’t being defiant, they broke the law and got court marshalled. I’m wondering why the cops in the US aren’t held to the same standard, it’s only fair.

It’s simple. Police are less important than soldiers, but they’ve got more pull.

The talk of “supporting the troops” that we heard during the Bush years was just talk. Soldiers are seen as disposable nonentities. Does anybody question this elementary fact? If you need evidence, there’s any number of examples. The Walter Reed scandal. Electrocutions of soldiers due to shoddy wiring in showers. Cover-ups of the electrocutions. Officers making threats to soldiers who had the temerity to purchase their own body armor. (Purchases of this type were highly embarrassing to the Bush administration.) Redeployment of soldiers who were so seriously injured that they couldn’t even wear body armor. Scheduling tours that were one day too short for benefits.

I should note that I don’t support the things that your friend’s platoon apparently did. I’m glad to hear that people were court-marshalled. However, at the same time, it’s clear to me that soldiers in general deserve more respect than they receive these days. They shouldn’t rank below police.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to make a related point.

It’s important to remember that random shootings of the type you mentioned can happen, both during military occupations and in a law-enforcement context. Soldiers and LEOs believe that it could happen to them at any moment. From their point of view, they’re justified in doing whatever it takes to stay alive.

However, if the police, in particular, are allowed to use the possibility that they might be attacked as an excuse for anything-goes in every situation, you end up with things like the Tyisha Miller, Robbie Tolan, Cau Thi Tran, Anthony Dwain Lee, Patrick Dorismond, Timothy Stansbury, Bernard Monroe, and Derek Copp shootings that I’ve talked about in the past. As a society, we can’t permit this. Sooner or later, there will be open warfare on the home front.

After Tyisha Miller was murdered, people talked openly about killing police at random, including innocent officers who had nothing to do with her death. I honestly expected the Oscar Grant murder earlier this year to produce a total breakdown of law and order in Oakland. It may still happen.

Note to Anonymous: You said, You’re right VOR. I liken the few bad apples argument to telling a diner (who went to a fancy restaurant) to just ignore those “few bad cockroaches” on your plate…

For the analogy to work, you’d need to say that most of the cockroaches on the plate are good and decent. I don’t think you’ll win a lot of LEO fans with this point.

If you’re going to use a restaurant metaphor, it would be better to point out that the Health Department is important. Without the Health Department, 95% of the restaurants out there would still be good. However, 5% would prepare apples in a sloppy manner and kill people. If one of your children was killed, would you shrug and say, “Hey, it was just a few bad apples?”

I don’t want to be killed by bad apples, whether it’s food or police. I don’t want people that I care about to be killed. Let’s set up a Health Department for the police that has the power to change things. Their initial objective will be to dismantle the Code of Silence.

Looks like the guy was trying to break free from the cars on his sides, why does his van swing back to the right almost immediately after coming close to the cop? He was trying to correct for going to the left in the first place. Just bad timing and all that, those cops should have been fired. Right on.

I don’t want to be killed by bad apples, whether it’s food or police. I don’t want people that I care about to be killed. Let’s set up a Health Department for the police that has the power to change things. Their initial objective will be to dismantle the Code of Silence.

An unaccountable bureaucracy to police another unaccountable bureaucracy? Sorry, I don’t see that as changing things. You’re a reasonable guy, VoR, but the fundamental problem with police agencies is the system itself. When you have people with so much power with a low level of accountability, you attract people who want to abuse that power. No amount of regulation or reform is going to change that. It’s all about incentives, and police agencies or any other government bureaucracies do not have the right incentives.

Note to xdamousex: You said, “An unaccountable bureaucracy to police another unaccountable bureaucracy? Sorry, I don’t see that as changing things.”

This is a valid point. I’d have worded things differently, but I liked the fact that I was able to work “bad apples” into the revised analogy.  

I don’t want an entirely new “bureaucracy”. I believe that we should try this approach: Use existing Internal Affairs departments. Tie compensation to prosecutions of Code of Silence offenders. Bonuses for convictions. However, this is just one possible solution.

You added, “You’re a reasonable guy, VoR.”

Thanks, since you intended this as a compliment. However, it isn’t true. My handle, Voice of Reason, refers to my belief that I’m able to reason, as opposed to any claim that I’m necessarily “reasonable”.

I’d like to be clear about this. Some people define “reasonable” as follows: I’m supposed to agree with the statement “every point of view is valid because feelings are more important than facts” or “everybody is entitled to their own reality” or “there’s two sides to every story” or statements of a similar type. I can’t do this. It’s nonsense.

When I was young and foolish, I was “reasonable”. Now I’m old and foolish, but I’m wise enough to know that sometimes it’s a bad idea to be “reasonable”.

Over the past decade, I’ve stopped debating things in a “reasonable” manner. These days, I prefer a slightly different approach. I believe that, in a serious dispute, you should try to be patient and kind, and to understand the other person’s point of view. Then, after you’re sure you’ve got the whole thing clear in your head, you should dismantle the other person’s arguments completely. Reduce every piece to dust. If you leave a single piece intact, people may claim that you haven’t touched the original structure at all.

You closed with, “the fundamental problem with police agencies is the system itself. When you have people with so much power with a low level of accountability, you attract people who want to abuse that power. No amount of regulation or reform is going to change that. It’s all about incentives, and police agencies or any other government bureaucracies do not have the right incentives.”

This is mostly correct. However, the last part is fuzzy. The word “incentives” should be clarified. If you mean that police should be bribed so that they won’t commit crimes, I don’t agree with this approach. We don’t pay burglars to ensure that they won’t break into houses. Are you suggesting that police should receive special treatment in this respect?

In my opinion: The Code of Silence is unacceptable. If you’re a LEO who supports the Code of Silence, you’re a criminal, and you should be dealt with accordingly. You’re the worst kind of criminal, because you’re the one who’s supposed to support truth and justice, and you’ve attacked both of them. You don’t need “incentives”. Society needs something. Society needs for you to be removed from the job, and possibly from the streets.

I agree with what VoR is saying. The solution is not to reward officers who do not lie on the stand. The problem is inherent to the type of person attracted predominantly to power. Personally, I believe that intelligence testing may be in order for a police force.

I suppose that one of the benefits of having more “intelligent” officers on the streets is that they will be less likely to make mistakes which they must later cover up. Intelligence testing itself is debatable, but it is not my point to say that a high score means higher intelligence. I would just like to point out that there are statistics showing positive correlation between intelligence test scores and reasoning ability. Lower likelihood of impulsive, unreasonable physical force cases against civilians in general would be a welcome step forward.

Most if not every cop is a crooked ass piece of shit fuck them all

This guy’s lawyer is a total hack if he can’t win a civil suit for more than a pibbling $100K. He SHOULD have sued for $100M.

The video’s been removed at this point.

Has this site’s layout gotten weird for anyone else?