What Law Enforcement Thinks of Us

Print This Post

You may also like...

16 Responses

  1. Nick42 says:

    Sometimes, I wonder if the LE agencies making these reports aren't crazy like a fox. By credulously accepting and disseminating these stories (pedobear, vodka soaked tampons, orbital mind control laser controllers being hidden in cigarette packs, etc) aren't they at the least giving officers another tool to pursue (read: justify) a stop or search.

    "Yes Mr. DA, I did observe a box of tampons in the suspect's purse and that combined with her glazed, blood shot eyes made me think of the vodka soaked tampon bulletin released last month. I was forced to strip search her for her own safety."

  2. SPQR says:

    I saw a video of an Albuquerque TV station reporting on the pedobear alert as if it was a serious issue. Great laughter ensued.

    By the way: "In terms of credulity, this is roughly the equivalent of the Department of Education decrying a startling decline in grammar amongst photographed cats. " also nearly broke one of my ribs.

  3. MeanDean says:

    In the 1980s, San Diego PD was convinced there was a Satanic street gang composed of zitty white suburban kids called the "Iron Maidens." After all, why else would all those long-haired hooligans be running around with the exact same patch on their denim jackets?

    Basically, the guidelines for 'gang enforcement' the SDPD used was a collection of the silliest, most ignorant bullshit any paranoid Evangelical could dream up. (Did you know the Dead Kennedys logo was a satanic symbol?) So, I'm not surprised at the level of ignorance still on display by law enforcement.

  4. Jeff Rogers says:

    I am disappointed that, while listing "Think of the Children", "Remember 9/11" and "War on Terror" that you omitted "It's worth it for a drug-free America". That's my personal favorite excuse for egregious over-enforcement.
    Hey wait. If I have nothing to hide, then why am I following a civil liberties website? Once again, I am hoist by my own petard. Oh crap, I hope "petard" isn't one of the keywords that the NSA searches on.
    I'm outta here…..

  5. Bruce says:

    I think Gary King's "not necessarily" part is the most offensive.

    To paraphrase – even though there is zero evidence to back this up, I'm going to accuse them of being pedophiles to back up my position that would blow away in a light breeze.

  6. Windypundit says:

    Well, Gary King is a prosecutor, and although we know that someone who chooses to be a prosecutor is not necessarily a narcissistic power-mad sadist, can we really take the chance?

  7. SPQR says:

    Jeff, having "weather-proofed ammunition", missing limbs and a petard will get you on the terrorist list.

  8. Linus says:

    "not necessarily" is the most chickenshit, cowardly thing to say. Talk about deniability. Let's use Mr. King's logic.

    Gary King is not necessarily a child molester himself. But, on the off chance that he IS, in order to protect children who might come into contact with Gary King, if I have to raise the possibility without any evidence, it's better to be on the safe side and keep the kids safe, right? And if it allows me to pat myself on the back with a smug, self-satisfied glow about what a great guy I am (being a "child-protector" and all), well, I'm ok with that.

    Hey, I said "not necessarily"! He can't complain, right?

  9. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    I'm fifty. I've seen the fight over Gun Control go from the general assumption that it was a Good Thing to the present state of affairs where the vast majority of States either have "must issue" laws regarding carry permits, or they don't require permits at all. When I read about this spreading "never mind what you think your rights are, do what we tell you" attitude in Lawn Forcement, I have to wonder how the two trends interact.

    Badly, I would suspect.

  10. Rliyen says:

    "….aware that the Pedobear symbol is out there…"

    And it's thinking about your children in a sun dress.

  11. John David Galt says:

    Maybe the "no snitching" movement has it right after all. If police are justified in stereotyping anyone interested in protecting himself from their abuses as "probably a criminal," then citizens are equally justified in stereotyping all police as thugs who get their jollies by bullying innocent people and only join the police so they'll be given a free pass when they do just that.

    I'll go back to thinking of the police and government as "us" when the police go back to thinking of the innocent majority as "us."

  12. andrews says:

    MN AG Gary king objects to a cartoon character offensive to child molesters. Certainly I cannnot fault that; of taste there is no dispute.

    As prudent people, we may want to keep children away from King, because we are concerned about people who want to protect the molesters. This even if the only harm is that the molesters are offended by a cartoon.

    Spinach growers may want to keep children away from those offended by "Popeye the Sailor" because such people might encourage vegetable avoidance. Same idea.

    I'm not saying that NM AG King is either a vegetable-avoider or a child molester.

  13. IGotBupkis, Sailing the Economic Seas Betwixt Scylla And Charybdis says:

    The general mindset of cops these days is that there are three classes of people:

    Mooks, Citizens, and Other Cops.

    Citizens rank only marginally better than Mooks, and as a result get converted easily when there is a call for it, like, say, any instance of not being a good little sheep.

    Police have power, that's why a lot of officers went into the career, it was a clear path to power. When you deny them any aspect of that power, it's a clear violation of their right to be powerful.

  14. IGotBupkis, Sailing the Economic Seas Betwixt Scylla And Charybdis says:

    >>> orbital mind control laser controllers being hidden in cigarette packs

    Aww, DAMN. I just paid my subscription fee for protection from these things!!

  15. Coyoty says:

    MeanDean, the FBI currently considers Juggalos to be a gang. A diffuse, leaderless gang. Which may explain what law enforcement thinks of Occupy.

  1. December 18, 2011

    […] your rights dealing with cops" material construed as probative of criminality [Popehat] Is Justice Scalia really an "unlikely" champion of defendants' Constitutional […]