If the Bitch Didn't Want Her Face Broken, She Shouldn't Have Mouthed Off

You may also like...

86 Responses

  1. Derp says:

    From http://www.policemisconduct.net/

    "Skokie, Illinois: A woman who was charged with driving under the influence and obstructing an officer claims in a lawsuit that a police officer used excessive force. She says that she was shoved head first into a jail cell. ow.ly/pHf7W"

    From the Linked article:

    Feuerstein underwent facial reconstruction surgery and now has a titanium plate in her face. All of the teeth on the right side of her mouth are loose, Hamilton said. The full extent of the damage is not yet known, she said.

    That cop fucked her up for the rest of her life. Half her teeth are loose and a metal plate in her face; those are lifetime injuries.

  2. Vermin says:

    It's time to amend the rules of evidence to allow evidence that a witness is or was a cop to show his propensity for violence and his poor character for honesty.

  3. Jaffa says:

    How is this even possible (from the article):

    'Feuerstein is going forward with a civil lawsuit because the department has not pursued charges against Officer Hart.'

  4. EAB says:

    "it's not like cops make a habit of pushing mouthy people into concrete walls head-first to teach them extrajudicial lessons."

    No, sometimes they rape them instead!

    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Former-HPD-cop-pleads-guilty-in-rape-case-4896955.php

  5. Steve979 says:

    The sad thing is without this surveillance environment we would not know what the video shows. Even with the video how many of those 'Peace Officers' still do not face the justice that a civilian normally receives in our courts?

    I find it tough to call this a free nation when people who work for government have more rights than people who don't.

    If you read 'Animal Farm', you might understand: "All animals are equal but, some are more equal than the rest".

    Thomas Jefferson would 'face-palm'.

  6. Clark says:

    Thomas Jefferson would 'face-palm'.

    No.

    Thomas Jefferson would organize an armed revolution.

    #tree_of_liberty

  7. I see several possibilities.

    • She ran into the wall because she's mentally imbalanced.
    • She ran into the wall because she Hates Our Freedoms and wants to discredit the police.
    • It's an isolated incident.
    • Procedures were duly followed.

    You gotta problem with any of that?

  8. ZarroTsu says:

    @Anton:

    None of the gears you've used as bullets are showing signs of forward momentum?
    \/(`-`)\/

  9. Mr A says:

    Given the availability of dirt cheap video recording devices, I'd like to see a law finding any cop automatically guilty of anything anyone accuses him of unless he's able to produce video proving his innocence.

    I'm not holding my breath, though, I know it's more important that they spend taxpayer money on tanks (think of all the faces you can break with a tank! so easy, too! I mean, seriously, you'll wonder how you ever broke faces without one).

  10. Piper says:

    I'd give more credit to Patrick Henry for rabble-rousing to armed revolution than Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration, but wasn't part of the First Continental Congress or the Colonial Armies).

  11. Christopher says:

    If you look at the video she does put her hands on the side of the doorframe.

    That said, when did the cops decide that literally anything we do that they dislike is grounds for maiming or killing us?

    Her resistance does not make this in any way less monstrous.

  12. Lizard says:

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots, tyrants, and any uppity Indians that resist assimilation." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Indian_removal)

    Jefferson, and his contemporaries, did not conceive of the natives as truly human. As such, they sensed no conflict between their sincere belief in human rights and their actions towards the native. Not "really" human? No human rights. At best, somewhat lesser rights. Certainly, no right to live on land Real People want to live on. "They were there first"? Well, so were the trees, but we cut them down anyway. What's being there first got to do with it? We're Real People, they're not. Full stop.

    Cops do not believe anyone not a cop is truly human.[1] Thus, there's nothing wrong with beating them to a pulp for no reason at all. They're not really people, after all.

    Dunbar's number bites us all, and perpetually traps us in the "get a bigger bully" solution. To his fellow cops, Officer Hart is a Real Person who deserves every benefit of the doubt, every excuse for his behavior, every forgiveness and second chance, and Ms. Feuerstein is Other. Something human-shaped, but not really human. She must have done *something* to deserve it, because Officer Hart is Human, a Real Person, and Real People don't just hurt Real People for no reason![2] (Maybe someone hacked the video. Happens all the time on TV, right?)

    So, since Real People (i.e, cops) do not turn on one another, video evidence be damned, the solution is to find someone to whom both Officer Hart and Ms. Feurstein are equally non-people, someone who has no reason to grant either an exception. But then, who judges that person? And so it goes.

    [1] Some may note this is exactly the same kind of dehumanization. Ding! Everyone does it, all the time. In a world of 7 billion people, the vast majority of them will be, to you, Other. (Of course, it might be argued I'm being too sympathetic, rather than too judgmental. I am, after all, saying the cops can't help seeing most of the world as not-people, because they're human, and that's what humans do. It's one of the reasons a sane society does not vest too much power in any person or group. If I were to declare the cops were "psychopaths" or otherwise acting in ways different from how nearly all humans act, given the opportunity, that would be more dehumanizing.)

    [2]I would bet my life's savings (about enough for a Big Mac, if you don't supersize it) that, even now, there's threads all over pro-police boards talking about what a frame up this is, how unfair this is to poor Officer Hart, how this shit happens all the time because people just plain hate cops for no reason, how there has to be "more to the story" and the "bleeding heart liberal media"[3] is covering it up, etc. It seems like madness, until you comprehend how the human brain works. To those posting on such boards, even if none of them personally know either of the parties, Officer Hart is "one of us". You make excuses for One Of Us. Response, on a pro-police board, to a story about a cop who was caught abusing a helpless woman? C'mon, give 'im a break, man. Yeah, you know, maybe he's got some problems. You don't know what he might have been going through on that day. He could have had a bad fight with his wife, or something, and just took it out on her. Everyone's lost it once or twice, right? He's basically an OK guy, he just needs some help.

    Post a story on the same board about a 14 year old who was shot by a cop when he tried to shoplift a candy bar? Most likely response: Serves the damn little punk right! They ought to lock up his parents, too, for raising him so badly! Look at them, playing for sympathy, sobbing all over the evening news. If they'd been good parents, their kid wouldn't have been shot. Stop making law-abiding citizens out to be the criminals!

    This is how our brains are hard-wired to see the world, and nothing — not laws, not consciousness raising sessions — can change it. This is why cops beat up helpless women. This is why people who wrote beautifully and passionately (and I want to emphasize, *sincerely*) on the ideals of freedom and human rights can turn around and conduct wars to drive people off their land.

    To say again: Nothing can be done to change it. Nothing.

    [3]Because policestateusa.com is a site clearly dripping with left-wing liberal progressivism. Why, I had to click through twelve different privilege check dialog boxes just to see the article!

  13. Ryan says:

    That is… awful. And how charges have not been laid just appalls me.

    And not that anything justifies that officers actions – let's be clear here, charges should be laid immediately – but I would be very curious to know what precisely transpired in the 6 seconds none of the video subjects (two officers, and the female) were outside of the recording frame.

  14. Lizard says:

    @Ryan: Probably, if anything interesting or important happened, that would have been the officer's initial excuse ("She kicked me", "She insulted me", etc.) The fact he blamed something that didn't even arguably happen (resisting being put in the cell) tells me he had no discernible motivation, even a trivial one, for what he did.

    That, or he knew "She called me a name, so I smashed her head in" wouldn't fly, so while "something" may have happened in the missing video, he knew it was insufficient. I'm pretty sure some people are already saying, "Well, he may have lied, but that's only because he knew he wouldn't have been treated fairly if he told the truth about what she did, which triggered his totally balanced and reasonable response. It's a shame cops are forced to lie like that by the interfering busybody civilians who just don't understand how hard it is being a cop!"

  15. Ryan says:

    @Lizard

    More what I was getting at is why the hell was someone who was just permitted to leave a cell with the officers' cooperation literally hurled back into it approximately 6 seconds later?

    It seems that both parties are mum on that little gap. As someone who regularly conducts investigations, I have a strong aversion to gaps. It's amazing what kind of details emerge when you fill them in.

  16. J@m3z Aitch says:

    In a court of law–on the rare occasions cops end up there–the stanfard rule of guilty until proven innocent must apply. But for every cop you see on the street, assume guilty and keep your distance. Even when they're not being violent they regularly act as though citizens are scum to be degraded. The last time I dealt with a cop, for a traffic violation on the way home from work, the bastard felt compelled to lecture me on the route I took home from work, be ause apparently it was suspicious that I'd gone by the grocery store first. Between cops and the University of Michigan, the color blue makes my skin crawl.

  17. Jag says:

    I don't understand how they are unable to press charges against the officer. Officers don't have immunity for excessive violence.

    @Ryan. I agree that the few second gap can be enlightening, but that video is pretty conclusive even if she was uncooperative in the hallway.

    @J@m3z Go Blue?

  18. Lizard says:

    @Ryan: It's not a bad question, and I don't mean that sarcastically, for once. Is the full complaint, and the department's response, online? That might provide more answers.

  19. Dion starfire says:

    The first video is not (necessarily) "horrible brutality". The bed and the small size of the cell turned a shove, that would normally cause only a stumble or trip and fall, into slamming the victim into a wall (or, in this case, the frame of a bed sticking out from the wall).

    I've personally seen this happen when a friend wanted to teach his daughter the danger of pushing somebody walking up the stairs. Unfortunately, he forgot about a bookshelf at the top of the stairs and what should have been a simple tumble resulted in a bloody nose and a nasty bruise.

    This wasn't a surly drunkard who called physical violence discipline. He was an awesome parent and all of his children were happy, well-behaved, and not afraid to tease or joke with him.

    Isn't there a saying to the effect of "don't assume malice when ignorance or incompetence would have the same result"?

  20. Clark says:

    Isn't there a saying to the effect of "don't assume malice when ignorance or incompetence would have the same result"?

    I've met too many cops to ever assume anything other than malice. Or, rather, as Lizard notes above, to assume malice-mixed-with-tribalism that looks more or less like pure malice.

  21. ChrisCM says:

    He fell from the ninth floor
    He hanged himself
    He slipped on a piece of soap while washing
    He hanged himself
    He slipped on a piece of soap while washing
    He fell from the ninth floor
    He hanged himself while washing
    He slipped from the ninth floor
    He hung from the ninth floor
    He slipped on the ninth floor while washing
    He fell from a piece of soap while slipping
    He hung from the ninth floor
    He washed from the ninth floor while slipping
    He hung from a piece of soap while washing.
    -Chris van Wyk

  22. jackn says:

    @Dion starfire

    A shove? I didn't look at it like that. I guess, its OK then. shoving is ok.

  23. glasnost says:

    Thomas Jefferson would 'face-palm'.

    No.

    Thomas Jefferson would organize an armed revolution.

    Is, in fact, an armed revolution an effective method of reducing the incidence of excessive use of force by law enforcement?

    This seems unlikely.

    I'm going to great lengths here to avoid letting this… insane… statement lead me into an equivalently derailing rant. It doesn't actually have to be this way. There's a perfectly good point being made at the base here that excessive use of force by police is bad and our legal system gives too much deference to the authorities in such matters, not helped by decades of consistently horrible judicial decisions made by judges supported by the political party that claims to be the leading supporters of 'limited government', or at least minimal oversight of people rich enough to have lots of lawyers.

    There's a place for people interested in effective action to fix this – the Democratic Party – or even, he admitted, plenty of good work to be done here outside of that most-efficient structure, but you'll notice that Radley Balko doesn't spend a lot of time calling for us to start gunning down cops in the street, as you appear to be calling for – because that's a good way to make sure you stay a useless, marginalized force that people have grave second thoughts about cooperating with or promoting.

  24. Cat G says:

    I'm shocked. SHOCKED. That police video system would normally have suffered an unrecoverable data failure for the indicated timestamp.
    That department's IT failed in its duty to protect the innocent police officer.

    (This is all sarcasm, if you can't tell. Except for the surprise that the video was able to be pulled.)

  25. Clark says:

    @glasnost

    Thomas Jefferson would 'face-palm'.

    No.

    Thomas Jefferson would organize an armed revolution.

    Is, in fact, an armed revolution an effective method of reducing the incidence of excessive use of force by law enforcement?

    Unclear.

    this… insane… statement

    What's insane? That Thomas Jefferson, who supported a military revolution, might support one again?

    There's a place for people interested in effective action to fix this
    – the Democratic Party –

    Is that a joke ?

    you'll notice that Radley Balko doesn't spend a lot of time calling for us to start gunning down cops in the street

    Neither do I, but the fact that Balko has opinion X says nothing what-so-ever about whether (a) Jefferson would have the same opinion, or (b) whether Jefferson or Balko's opinion makes more sense.

    as you appear to be calling for

    I noted that Thomas Jefferson was not a man for face-palming. He was a man for writing, negotiating, and for launching revolutions. You've failed to read the words on the page and have created a fantasy here.

    While it's true that I wouldn't shed a tear if the cop who pushed the woman got a slow, painful, inevitably deadly form of scrotal cancer, that's as far as my ideation goes.

    Thomas Jefferson, though, might argue for something a bit more bloody.

  26. Steve979 says:

    Thomas Jefferson would organize an armed revolution.

    Maybe.

    Prudence,indeed will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experiences hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    Declaration of Independence, 1776

    The best question is: are these evils to which we can suffer or not?

  27. Steven H. says:

    @Glasnost:

    There's a place for people interested in effective action to fix this – the Democratic Party

    Would that be the same Democratic Party that's been running things in Skokie for the last 25+ years? Just curious….

  28. Clark says:

    Steve979:

    Maybe.

    Look at the list of objections in the Declaration. He thought that those were worth launching a war over. Compare that to how bad the government is today. If he were alive now, Thomas would be using Tor to send manifestos and bomb making recipes around.

    Which does not address the question of whether it would be pragmatic. I merely note that past performance does suggest future returns, and that's the kind of man that our Third President was.

  29. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    Just throwing ideas out here:

    Establish strong and detailed limitations to 'qualified immunity"

    Establish in Law that any time there is a dispute where there should be video or audio of the incident, and such evidence has been 'lost' while in police custody, the Police version of events must be presumed to be false.

    Disband all Police Unions.

  30. Mike_C says:

    There's a place for people interested in effective action to fix this – the Democratic Party – or even, he admitted, plenty of good work to be done here outside of that most-efficient structure

    Whut the … ahhahaha! Good one!
    Um, unless you're serious. That would cry out for expansion and clarification.

  31. David C says:

    Establish strong and detailed limitations to 'qualified immunity"

    I'd rather we not do that. Qualified immunity only applies when the case law is not clear. It's there for a good reason. You don't want public officials getting sued when the law itself is unclear and they are doing the best they can.

    Establish in Law that any time there is a dispute where there should be video or audio of the incident, and such evidence has been 'lost' while in police custody, the Police version of events must be presumed to be false.

    I think you are wording that wrong. If you're going to presume that whatever the police say is false, all the police have to do is claim they did it :P

    But seriously, there shouldn't have to be a law. It should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If the police department can show that the station was struck by a meteor, for example, and the person in question did not bring the case until after they found out the footage was destroyed in that freak accident… Well, I think the jury should decide for themselves who to believe.

    Disband all Police Unions.

    Let's not. I understand your frustration when they defend scum officers, but…

    My mother works as a teacher and recently her union had its powers taken away. The school now has her take lunch during first period, and she gets no opportunity to take a break after that until the end of the day. Why? Because they can.

    I'm hardly pro-union, but without them, the government will take advantage. (And you can imagine that the FIRST officers to be taken advantage of will be the whistleblowers.) And there's no reason why accused officers can't have a group advocating for them.

  32. Clark says:

    @David C

    You don't want public officials getting sued when the law itself is unclear and they are doing the best they can.

    Yes, I do.

    Incentives matter.

    If a government employee is torn between doing nothing and doing something that a jury of 12 people might conclude infringes on the rights of a citizen, I want that government employee to fear that he might lose his house, his pension, and his liberty, and I want him to take the totally safe choice and not infringe a citizen's liberties.

    But seriously, there shouldn't have to be a law. It should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

    That's what we've got now. We've tried it, and it's failed. We live in a police state.

    Disband all Police Unions.

    Let's not. I understand your frustration when they defend scum officers, but…

    My mother works as a teacher and recently her union had its powers taken away. The school now has her take lunch during first period, and she gets no opportunity to take a break after that until the end of the day. Why? Because they can.

    So now she merely gets a good salary for a 180 day work year, and a pension?

    Color me apalled.

    I'm hardly pro-union, but without them, the government will take advantage.

    But the teachers and the cops are the government.

    You're just trying to referee some intra-government squabbles.

    From my point of view they're all an undistinguished homogenous band of criminals.

  33. David C says:

    Look at the list of objections in the Declaration. He thought that those were worth launching a war over. Compare that to how bad the government is today

    Hmm… Some of them don't apply at all, and some seem to apply even more today than they did then.

    I think the one that best applies to this case may be:

    For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

    Although this one's not a murder. (Not THIS time, anyway.)

  34. David C says:

    You're just trying to referee some intra-government squabbles.

    So? That's essentially what the entire topic was about in the "NYPD: It's Your Job To Do Things We'll Punish You For Doing" post: a dispute between government employees. (Yes, I realize that was a different author, but it just shows that it's not unreasonable of me to do so.)

    So now she merely gets a good salary for a 180 day work year, and a pension?

    Color me apalled.

    I don't expect you to be appalled. She could quit at any time (or at least at the end of the year; they do have contracts.)

    What I AM saying here is that if the government – or rather, those with supervisory positions within the government – no longer have the union checks on what they can do to those below them, then that gives them more ways to punish anyone within the department who, say, expresses that maybe they should stop pushing suspects headfirst into walls. And THAT would be a bad thing.

    I don't know, maybe I read these articles too close together and they aren't as related as I think they are.

  35. Because of past acquaintance, Lizard surprises me by saying, “Nothing can be done to change it. Nothing.” Regardless of tribalism, people who deal with the public and are not sheltered by a safe monopoly usually make some effort to pretend that many of the naked apes outside the club are almost like real people.

    Applause to Clark for “Yes, I do.”

    David C: Do police unions customarily take the side of whistleblowers against their Brother Officers??

  36. David C says:

    David C: Do police unions customarily take the side of whistleblowers against their Brother Officers??

    Perhaps not on the whistleblowing itself… but if you are saying that they would not lift a finger even if the officer was being punished for that whistleblowing in ways that were in violation of the policies in place for everyone… then I would have no use for that union. Perhaps that is the case. I can't say I'm familiar enough to know.

  37. Patrick (not Popehat) says:

    @David C

    Your mom…and the cops…have recourse through the political system. If they feel like they are getting the shaft they can elect people to fix it. Why do they also need a Union? Unions work when management is adverse to the interests of the union and compromise is halfway between interests of management and labor. If the union gets the person across the table elected (or the person who appointed them elected) incentives get all f**ked up.

  38. JW says:

    @Dion

    "don't assume malice when ignorance or incompetence would have the same result"?

    Your shameless, sloppy and repeated authority fetishizing is making me question that standard.

  39. JW says:

    There's a place for people interested in effective action to fix this – the Democratic Party

    So, that's what it's like to shoot milk out of your nose.

  40. Clark says:

    @JW:

    So, that's what it's like to shoot milk out of your nose.

    LOL.

    Yes. I'm still torn on whether this is subtle trolling done perfectly or if it's actually what it looks like.

  41. Suedeo says:

    Steve979, that's the very question which has been on my mind. Thanks for the poignant Jefferson quote — Kudos!

  42. David C says:

    Your mom…and the cops…have recourse through the political system. If they feel like they are getting the shaft they can elect people to fix it.

    If the union gets the person across the table elected (or the person who appointed them elected) incentives get all f**ked up.

    You seem to want it both ways here.

    I think I understand some of what you are saying, though. It's bad when government employees can essentially vote in their own supervisors. School districts in particular are prone to this, because the elections are low turnout, many voters who aren't school district employees don't know what the candidates stand for, and schools employ a lot of people.

    But if you're telling some officer who speaks out against beatings that if he doesn't like working 4 evenly spaced two-hour shifts each day then he should just vote himself better supervisors, that's obviously not going to solve the problem (and if he IS somehow able, then we're back at employees electing their own supervisors again, which is where we don't want to be.)

  43. twency says:

    "After all she put both hands on the door frame and refused oops, video evidence contradicts the police report."

    What video are you looking at? Her right hand isn't visible, but at the 34 second mark she can clearly be seen putting her left hand on the frame in a manner which would make it difficult for her to pass through. At most the video is inconclusive as to her actions at the door, it doesn't contradict the written report.

    Whether her actions justified the shove is a separate question, which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

  44. glasnost says:

    Okay, I made a mistake in thinking that by implying that Thomas Jefferson would be calling for armed revolution right now, that you were also endorsing it.

    Usually, when people say "Thomas Jefferson would say we should do this", they usually mean "we should do this". Not always. But this is… an easy mistake to make, so… you could consider being less ambiguous.

    Whut the … ahhahaha! Good one!
    Um, unless you're serious. That would cry out for expansion and clarification.

    .

    I am completely serious. It's not a complicated argument. We have two major political parties in this country. One of them has a base that generally supports civil liberties and the rights of those accused by police. The other has a base that does not. The first one is the Democratic Party. The second one is the Republican Party. If you want laws changed in this country, the most effective method of making this happen is to find the political party most sympathetic to your point of view and work it from the inside.

    It is not a coincidence that this program was passed in a democratic stronghold, that what civil rights remain against police officers are found in democratic stronghold states, and that supreme court justices who, for example, believe that the fourth amendment exists, are democratic supreme court justices.

    If you don't believe me, you might ask Ken White for an opinion on which states tend to completely ignore the rights of criminal defendants more than others, or which political party, on average, appoints justices who respect the rights of criminal defendants more than the other.
    There are, of course, plenty of anecdotes to the contrary, just not as many as there are in confirmation.

    Here are a few random examples for a topic that needs a book:

    http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/bbc/pdf/CRTrendsFOURTHAMENDMENTEXCLUSIONARYRULE.pdf

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States

    https://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/new-conservative-majority-rolls-back-fundamental-rights-and-closes-
    (skip the ones towards the top, and focus on the criminal ones)

    http://www.greenbag.org/v14n4/v14n4_articles_chemerinsky.pdf
    (Focus on the criminal ones, if you think the ones about limiting our abiliity to sue corporations are a good thing)

    There have been some green shoots on incarceration from the conservative wing recently, but they sure haven't reached the judicial area. They're 'green shoots' because the last three decades have been a wasteland.

  45. glasnost says:

    I'm still torn on whether this is subtle trolling done perfectly or if it's actually what it looks like.

    .

    It wasn't subtle trolling. I have a very limited sense of humor.
    (letting this comment stop here might have been subtle self-deprecation-oriented trolling, though).

    …The way in which it was expressed, though, might have indulged in a small amount of deliberate neglect of avoiding a phrasing known to be unconvincing around here, while also being more or less sincere.

    If you really haven't encountered a pro-civil-liberties, loyal liberal democrat in your life… now you know what they sound like. No, this is not an argument refuted by examples of democrats who are crappy on civil liberties. There's always examples of democrats who are crappy on any imaginable principle that democrats are supposedly in favor of, good principle or bad. That's life in a political party, especially where money equals speech.

  46. glasnost says:

    Just saw this, and worth addressing while I wait for my link-heavy prime response to get out of moderation:

    Would that be the same Democratic Party that's been running things in Skokie for the last 25+ years? Just curious….

    First, Illinois, specifically, sucks. Not quite as bad as Alabama for rights of criminal defendants, but for a Democratic state, it sucks.

    This particular incident doesn't specific demonstrate that – these incidents happen in all 50 states, and they often fail to get fixed in all fifty states. One political party is sympathetic to a widespread and bipartisan problem; one isn't. Neither one is reliably sympathetic when it's the particular official's bacon on the line, or their police force being accused, so I'm talking about broader flexibility outside of the predictable stupid mendacity that shows up as you get close to the scene of the crime.

  47. spinetingler says:

    Clark: teachers…an undistinguished homogenous band of criminals.

    There's the Clark we know and lo…, er, whatever.

  48. Rob says:

    glasnost: what you haven't noticed, perhaps because you've been sucked into the tribalist idiocy that surrounds or current political Parties, is that the vast majority of Democrats are big-"S" Statist. True civil libertarian Democrats are a dying bread, and while not quite as rare as hen's teeth yet, are still pretty damn rare*.

    Yours is the party that bitched about George Bush's surveillance state and then turned it up to 11 once they got in charge. Yours is the party that runs some of the most abhorrently and reflexively anti-civil libertarian city and state governments in the nation. You cannot absolve the Democrats of their role in all of this.

    *There is only one (somewhat) consistently pro-civil liberties national Democratic politician that I know of, off hand: Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR. Though, unfortunately, he sucks when it comes to economic liberty.

  49. Ryan says:

    Clark:

    That's what we've got now. We've tried it, and it's failed. We live in a police state.

    If I could, in perfect Milgram-esque fashion, be given a button with which I could administer electric shocks to a person anytime they use the terms "fascist," "police state," "tyranny," etc to describe the social climate of any contemporary first-world democracy, I would do it every time without an ounce of hesitation or remorse because it's what the user of said terminology absolutely deserves.

    The fact of that matter is that the vast majority of residents of those countries which use these terms unironically have no idea what a fascist, tyrannical police state actually looks like. Unfortunately, I have met enough refugees from fascist, tyrannical police states that the privileged-but-sadly-uninformed folks – like Clark, in this instance – who use these terms really get on my nerves.

  50. Clark says:

    Ryan:

    privileged-but-sadly-uninformed folks – like Clark

    I am impressed that you know me, my background, and my interactions with the law so well as to be able to make that statement with (apparently) complete confidence.

  51. Jay_b11175 says:

    @ Ryan

    What do you think a "fascist", "police state", or "tyrannical" government should look like? If you've met and spoken with so many refugees of such states, how did they describe them? Now, the important part, how many non-refugees of these same states have you met and spoken with? How many U.S. citizens who have been the victims of the "fascist", "police state", "tyrannical" U.S. government have you met and spoken to? The devil is in the details as they say. Anyone who participates in and is accepted in such a government will tell you that it is the "bees knees" if you will. It caters to their every whim and strikes down all who oppose their ideologies (whether their own or adopted out of perceived need). To the fascists, fascism is paradise. To all others, not so much. Before you run your mouth again about American exceptional-ism and how that can never happen here, why don't you first speak with the innocent people who's houses are raided and dogs shot in front of them while held at gunpoint because, because, well just because they can. Or the African Americans and Hispanics having their 4th amendment rights shat on in NY state because of "stop and frisk", etc., etc., etc. The list goes on and on. The U.S. has the larges prison population on the globe (that's not even per capita, that's just straight up population numbers) while being 3rd in the world for population. If that doesn't ring an alarm I don't know what does. There are more people being oppressed in the United States than per capita than anywhere else in the world. Just remember, Germans loved the Nazi party… at least the ones that weren't in jail or in concentration camps.

  52. Aaron S. says:

    All of these incidents get investigated. There's always "something" that the videos don't catch, which is why no one ever gets disciplined. I mean, that's why no one ever gets disciplined (or goes to jail), right?

  53. Dan Weber says:

    It's been my long held belief that people who say "if you want to support small-L libertarianism, then you need to vote for [insert name of poster's party]" aren't out to support freedom, they are out to try and pull as many libertarians into their party as possible.

    I'm marginally more convinced I'm right now.

  54. Steven H. says:

    @Glasnost:

    Would that be the same Democratic Party that's been running things in Skokie for the last 25+ years? Just curious….

    First, Illinois, specifically, sucks. Not quite as bad as Alabama for rights of criminal defendants, but for a Democratic state, it sucks.

    So, basically, you're saying that the phrase "No TRUE Democrat" would do what these Democrats do?

  55. AlphaCentauri says:

    There needs to be a corollary of Godwin's law that says anyone in an internet argument that needs to appeal to an 18th century slaveholder to support his points of view about freedom and limited government has lost the argument.

  56. Clark says:

    @AlphaCentauri

    There needs to be a corollary of Godwin's law that says anyone in an internet argument that needs to appeal to an 18th century slaveholder to support his points of view about freedom and limited government has lost the argument.

    Yes, that would be wonderful for you, wouldn't it?

    Then instead of actually arguing you could just raise a flag that says "opponent has engaged in speech crime; I win".

    Which is, in fact, how much of the modern left operates, no?

    "racist"

    "climate denier"

    "divisive speech"

    etc.

    Why don't you try arguing for your position instead of just legally or culturally outlawing the opposition?

  57. Lizard says:

    @Anton:

    Despite my well-documented love of the sound of my own keyboard clacking, it seems no matter how many words I write, I can't clarify every point.

    You can't change human nature. Period, full-stop.

    You can change how human nature manifests.

    To quote Clark:

    If a government employee is torn between doing nothing and doing something that a jury of 12 people might conclude infringes on the rights of a citizen, I want that government employee to fear that he might lose his house, his pension, and his liberty, and I want him to take the totally safe choice and not infringe a citizen's liberties.

    Tribalism is based, in large part, on fear of the tribe casting you out. Again, this is deep-rooted human nature. So you replace that with a bigger fear — fear of being cast out of the "Tribe of tribes", of being removed from the larger society (loss of property, job, status).

    This works — as you note. But it also leads to what I'm calling the bigger bully problem: The people who can successfully excise the cop have their own tribe, and while it's good they put the cop outside of it enough to judge him fairly, they do not then judge each other — and because tribes intermingle and merge and overlap, you get a degeneration. The people you interact with the most outside your tribe become closer than the people you interact with the least, and because we're humans with a few billion extra neurons on top of our instincts, these interactions can be with labels or ideas rather than people. We put people into, or out of, our tribes not based on their scent, but on their vocabularies, their political affiliations, their symbols.

    In a world with multiple competing security/protection systems, the employees of these systems will see each other — even if they work for different companies — as more "kin" than the people who pay them. They will quickly work out formal or informal systems to make sure they don't fight with each other. Indeed, we already see this with how paramilitary groups like Blackwater act. The police, the army, and the mercenaries, all of whom might ideally regulate each other's behavior, instead cooperate tacitly, because "all these guys in black kevlar who use the same slang and body language I do are Real People. Everyone else is not."

    People do respond to incentives, but often irrationally, from the perspective of the incentive-offerer, because each human firstly defines their self-interest uniquely, and secondly, often makes incorrect judgments about what is in said self-interest.

    So far, the only thing that even halfway, kind of, sort of, vaguely, works is constantly juggling power groups and competing forces, organizing society along rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock lines, instead of along hierarchical lines, but hierarchies are also inherent in our nature. We're tribal beasts. Some people more so, some people less — we're a varied species — but our innate nature is to form hierarchies.[1] Even in the smallest groups, you see the emergence of natural leaders, of people who set the tone of the debate and whose approval is sought, often subconsciously, by the others. Attempting to fight this instinct inevitably produces a leadership caste which goes around punishing people for not being leaderless enough. (And it can often be hilarious to watch, if you're safely on the outside, like OWS' "privilege stack".)

    [1]To quote Time Bandits:
    "We all agreed there weren't gonna be any leaders, right?"
    "Right! Right! Yeah! That's it!"
    "Good! Now shut up and do what I tell you!"

  58. N. Easton says:

    Jefferson owned a fair number of slaves, a situation enforced by brutal violence. He started a revolution on behalf of wealthy and powerful people like himself. I highly doubt he'd actually have advocated for a revolution on behalf of the type of politically powerless people to whom things like this happen; it's not consistent with his record.

    (Fan of TJ here, in a sort of odd sense of the word "fan," I've read some of his biographies.)

    Basically Jefferson, like his revolutionary cohort, was totally okay with authoritarian violence and repression so long as it was aimed at lower social castes. Like women, and people who didn't own property, and non-white people.

  59. Ryan says:

    You are able to freely post opinions calling for various consequences for persons employed by government for no other reason than they are employed by government. You are able to get legal counsel if arrested. You have various protected rights, protection of which is actually enforced. You are not beaten, thrown in jail without due process, arrested, or killed for your opinions. Yet you call the US a police state. That is why I confidently call you privileged by sadly uninformed.

    I have met people – refugees, or just immigrants (to my country, not the US mind) who have fled actual police states, who saw loved ones disappear, who have been beaten within an inch of their lives for speaking their thoughts in private or who just being who they are. So you'll have to forgive me if I find your snark a less thanb compelling rebuttal.

    The US is seeing increased militarization of police? Sure. Many US law enforcement agencies have less-than-stellar records when it comes to protection of rights? On board with you there. Systemic and systematic discrimination against particular groups in the US? Yup. Broekn legal system? I absolutely hear you and agree!

    Fascist, tyrannical police state? Your rhetorical hyperbole does actual victims of these regimes a serious disservice.

    Apologies for any errors, posting fgrom my phone is awful.

  60. Nick says:
    Would that be the same Democratic Party that's been running things in Skokie for the last 25+ years? Just curious….

    First, Illinois, specifically, sucks. Not quite as bad as Alabama for rights of criminal defendants, but for a Democratic state, it sucks.

    So, basically, you're saying that the phrase "No TRUE Democrat" would do what these Democrats do?

    I can't speak for glasnost, but I'd say this is pretty much the 'working as intended' result of 40 years of Republican law and order demagoguery regardless of who happens to be on the local town council.

  61. Nick says:

    Yes, that would be wonderful for you, wouldn't it?

    Then instead of actually arguing you could just raise a flag that says "opponent has engaged in speech crime; I win".

    Which is, in fact, how much of the modern left operates, no?

    "racist"

    "climate denier"

    "divisive speech"

    etc.

    Why don't you try arguing for your position instead of just legally or culturally outlawing the opposition?

    Sorry, this whole comment is just too filled with irony. This is pretty much how the right routinely avoids being held accountable for fairly reprehensible views. (especially amusing for the climate denier one, given that there actually has been a fairly thorough argument that's been through peer review on that topic, that's the whole point)

    If any accusation of racism or something similar is de facto censorship that no one racists will ever be held accountable as long as they have a half-assed cover story (and lets be honest the chances that there aren't any people in power making questionable decisions because things like racism, or valuing oil money over climate change danger, etc. is essentially nil).

    Things like racism, climate denialism, etc. are dumb reasons for doing things, and pointing that out is a legitimate argument against something. If free speech doesn't allow that sort of counterargument, it's not free speech.

    The argument against Jefferson's theoretical modern day revolution isn't "Jefferson owned slaves so you can't talk about him", it's "Jefferson was a rich slave owner that only seemed to care once his taxes went up, and then only about other rich white guys, so this seems a pretty classic argument from authority fallacy".

    note: I'm leaving out 'divisive speech' because that's a vague scary sounding catch all that Clark threw in there, and would have a hard time finding examples of. I should probably say I'm not in any way accusing Clark of being racist (because this is the internet and I'm sure someone would have read it that way) or otherwise evil.

  62. Kevin says:

    @Ryan: So your argument is that America is not a police state, since there are other countries that are way worse police states? Is that the whole of your argument? Because it's pretty unconvincing.

    "Murderer??? No, I'm not a murderer, I only killed a few people! Other people have killed WAY more than that!"

  63. Burnside says:

    I can't speak for glasnost, but I'd say this is pretty much the 'working as intended' result of 40 years of Republican law and order demagoguery regardless of who happens to be on the local town council.

    Your're right. We really need to stop telling Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. to stop electing all those Republicans. And they've been doing it for 40 years?! Wow, you'd think the voters in those cities would know better.
    <blockquote}If any accusation of racism or something similar is de facto censorship that no one racists will ever be held accountable as long as they have a half-assed cover story
    Any? No. Most? Yes.

  64. Burnside says:

    Curses! Foiled by a typo! How did I replace > with }?

  65. Do ‘real’ police-states spring full-grown from the brow of a god?

  66. N. Easton says:

    This would probably be easier to talk about if we had a common definition of "police state" that we were all working from.

  67. Clark says:

    @N. Easton

    This would probably be easier to talk about if we had a common definition of "police state" that we were all working from.

    Google gives me

    * police state – noun – a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

    * totalitarian – adjective – of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

    So, let's run it down.

    system of government that is centralized? check.

    system of government that is dictatorial? opinions differ.

    system of government requires complete subservience? opinions differ. I say that if you can't grow grain on your own land and feed it to your cows, can't smoke pot, can't decide make decisions about photography based on your religious principles, then yes.

    controlled by a political police force? if we interpet the word "police" literally, then no. If we interpret it more generally to talk about the national security state, then yes.

    that secretly supervises the citizens' activities? hell yes.

  68. htom says:

    Eventually, policemen (and policewomen) who do such things (indeed, all police) … will hide the fact that they were police.

  69. Mike_C says:

    One of them has a base that generally supports civil liberties and the rights of those accused by police. The other has a base that does not. The first one is the Democratic Party. The second one is the Republican Party.

    Yes, the Democratic Party supports the Second Amendment in such a big way. Also, Democrats such as Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick would never do anything such as "lock down" whole communities and send heavily armed police systematically into private homes on the off chance of catching the junior Marathon Bomber (who of course was discovered by a private citizen in his backyard after the lock down was lifted) because of their vast respect for the Fourth Amendment. And so forth.

    The Democratic Party is no more on the side of civil liberties than is the Republican Party. The two parties just tend to differ somewhat on which rights they would most like to eliminate first. While I despise and oppose the religious whacko (the real "American Taliban") elements among the Republicans I truly fear the smug, self-righteous nanny state do-gooder wing of the Democratic Party.

  70. del says:

    http://www.wistv.com/story/23698228/deputy-fired-after-trying-to-arrest-soldier-at-bar

    With video.

    "On October 7 at Buffalo Wild Wings on Devine Street, Derrick, 49, approached 23-year-old Brittany Ball, a female soldier at Fort Jackson, in an apparent attempt to calm her down after she became emotional.

    But it's not clear why Derrick thought it was necessary to go out to his truck get his handcuffs, gun and badge and return to the bar, where he handcuffed her and began shouting at her.

    WIS first heard last week that video of the incident existed and that it was likely going to be a serious problem for Derrick.

    On Tuesday, WIS learned that Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott decided to fire Derrick, apparently for violating department policy in handcuffing and detaining Ball. Lott made the decision shortly before he met with Interim Columbia Police Chief Ruben Santiago and Fifth Circuit Solicitor Dan Johnson.

    Some of the issues in that meeting surely centered on why Derrick took action, whether he was following department policy and state law, and how the police department responded in the process of arresting him."

    http://www.military.com/video/law-enforcement/police/rcsd-deputy-assaults-us-soldier/2745952479001/

    "Accordingto a Columbia Police Department incident report, around 11 p.m. Derrick approached a female soldier from Fort Jackson who appeared to be upset. The report states 23-year-old Brittany Ball showed no interest in Derrick and the two started arguing. Police say Derrick, who was not in uniform and was drinking alcohol, left the restaurant and returned with handcuffs he retrieved from his vehicle. Derrick overpowered Ball, handcuffed her, pulled her to her feet, and slammed her head into a metal table, the report states. Ball, according to the report, was also drinking alcohol. Cell phone video recorded by a bar patron details the events as they unfolded"

  71. Careless says:

    This is the first time I read one of these right before going into the town at issue. Weird.

  72. AlphaCentauri says:

    Yes, that would be wonderful for you, wouldn't it?

    Then instead of actually arguing you could just raise a flag that says "opponent has engaged in speech crime; I win".

    No, I'm just mighty tired of arguments where everyone claims, "I'm right because Jefferson would have done this if he were alive today!" "No, I'm right, because Jefferson would have done that if he were alive today!" When in reality no one would give a fuck what Jefferson would do if he were alive today, because he would have been thrown in jail just like Ariel Castro for holding women captive, raping and impregnating them.

  73. Clark says:

    @AlphaCentauri

    I'm mighty tired of arguments where everyone claims, "I'm right because Jefferson would have done this if he were alive today!"

    No one in this thread argued that.

    No one.

  74. AlphaCentauri says:
    Thomas Jefferson would 'face-palm'.

    No.

    Thomas Jefferson would organize an armed revolution.

    #tree_of_liberty

    Thomas Jefferson spent a lot of time worrying about how to avoid an armed rebellion. He tried to pass a law making it illegal for slaveholders to free their own slaves, an attempt that failed because even other slave-owning Virginia legislators thought it was too extreme. He was worried that having free Blacks in America would make it easier for a slave rebellion to be successful.

    His own 200 slaves would never have remained under his family's control without a police state in Virginia to guard against slave rebellions — that was the "well-regulated militia" the South needed protected. Jefferson was part of that police state, and it protected him and his property by any means necessary.

    (He did eventually free his own children by Sally Hemmings, who was his 14-year-old sister-in-law when he started having sex with her, but since their children were at least 7/8 white, they wouldn't have had a lot of motivation to lead a rebellion instead of trying to "pass.")

  75. orvis barfley says:

    clark, clark, clark, the cops don't throw people down the stairs.  they only throw them down the top step.

    the people fall the rest of the way, and that's on them.

  76. glasnost says:

    It's been my long held belief that people who say "if you want to support small-L libertarianism, then you need to vote for [insert name of poster's party]" aren't out to support freedom, they are out to try and pull as many libertarians into their party as possible.

    I'm marginally more convinced I'm right now.

    Not mutually exclusive goals; not sure why you think someone doing this would have only one goal or the other, rather than both. They're complementary goals: More of A leads to more of B, and more of B leads to more of A.

    *There is only one (somewhat) consistently pro-civil liberties national Democratic politician that I know of, off hand: Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR. Though, unfortunately, he sucks when it comes to economic liberty.

    That's the one you know of: the ones you don't know of are a function of the limited attention you are paying.

    The Amash Amendment vote just happened:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/25/1226533/-Know-your-caucuses-Breaking-down-the-Amash-amendment-vote-on-the-NSA

    It was extremely unusual because, while more democrats voted for it than republicans, and while a much higher percentage of the democratic caucus voted for it than the republican caucus, it was very unusual because it was kind of close. It varied from the typical pattern of overwhelming, near-total opposition in the Republican party to any judicial or law-enforcemented related civil liberty measures and broad, although certainly not universal, democratic support. For more, look at any reauthorization of the patriot act:

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/congress-government-spying-votes-charts/65969/

    Away from the leadership, most democratic party politicians support criminal civil liberties, and most republican party politicians don't. There is an enormous pile of evidence of this. It corresponds to what the respective voters do and don't want.

    As conceded ad nasueum already, police officers do bad things everywhere, and their local governments are often uninterested in punishing them, everywhere. The extent of how bad it gets, the extent of complicity beyond the police officers themselves, and the to which the situation, when publicized, is improved, is in part due to the procedures in place – and there are better procedures in blue states because blue state voters, activists, and politicians don't subscribe to the 'more rubble, less trouble' approach to crime.

    This trend is contradicted by a countervailing trend in which total control by one-party leads to a decay in accountability, which is why pockets of above-averagely-bad behavior crops up a lot in both texas and illinois. Both trends are real. There's a mountain range of evidence that democrats support marginal improvements/fixes to civil liberty procedures and republicans do not.

    Contrary arguments are mostly based on the hypocrisy fallacy, where inconsistent support is worse than total indifference/opposition, and perfect-enemy-of good nihilism, none of which does much good for real people needing actual help. It is, of course, totally possible to advocate for improvements while steadfastly ducking or spurning the question of which political party is more on your side and which isn't. If that feeds your ego, have fun with it.

    Also, sure, second amendment blah blah. Not really what I'm talking about. Did not claim that the Democratic Party makes Julienne fries for you, or follows your definition of freedom promotion.

    You cannot absolve the Democrats of their role in all of this.

    .

    I don't. I could say I know which of two evils are the greater when it comes to civil rights, although it doesn't really match my personal feelings. Like most Democratic activists, base voters and non-spotlight politicians, I'm not a fan of our surveillance state, and I consistently vote in primaries against it on the occasions that I have the chance. The bureaucrats themselves get a very large vote on their own actions, especially in a gridlock, divided government scene. If I was a senior democratic official, I would show up to work drunk every day just because I could – it's impossible to be fired when there's a permanent filibuster on your replacement.

  77. Andrew MacKie-Mason says:

    It looks to me like she does put both hands on the door frame right before they push her through.

    That doesn't excuse the excessive force, of course, but claiming that cops lie more than they actually do just makes it harder to convince people about the cases when they're actually lying.

  78. Duvane says:

    @glasnost

    It is, of course, totally possible to advocate for improvements while steadfastly ducking or spurning the question of which political party is more on your side and which isn't.

    My reaction at this point is to say "why should I care which party is more on my side?", and not in a sarcastic fashion. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're correct that Democratic candidates and officeholders are more likely to be on the right side of civil liberties issues than Republican candidates and officeholders. So what? If we're talking about voting, surely the proper thing is to evaluate each candidate per se; if a candidate is better on issues that matter to me, why should I give a damn whether there's an R or a D after his or her name? If party affiliation was the only information I had about candidates in a race, I'd rather not vote in that election, as neither parties record on anything is universally strong enough to support that. If we're talking about monetary contributions, again, surely I can be more effective donating to individual campaigns that I think will do the most good than to the party that I think is marginally better overall? Same goes for volunteering.

    Your arguments about Democratic strongholds being better on civil liberties than Republican strongholds strikes me as assuming causation when you only have correlation (again, assuming arguendo that the correlation exists). Perhaps (since as you admit, there are many exceptions in both directions) the problem is with party strongholds in general. Or maybe the same conditions that result in poor civil liberties also result in party strongholds, and maybe the two reinforce themselves. To say that Republican strongholds are typically bad for civil liberties, therefore you should vote Democrat seems to me a long way away from a valid argument.

    If you are arguing that one can have more effect on primary participation in the "right party", I would say that would vary greatly from election to election (and of course, if independents can vote in either primary where one votes, then surely one should register independent and make the decision on a case by case basis).

    The only area where I can see that you might have a point is if one is embarking a political career of one's own. If one accepts the premise that an effective career can only be had in one party or the other (which I will readily concede is typically true, unfortunately IMO), then I suppose that given that scenario one might survey the parties at large and choose the one that most aligns with ones goal. Perhaps. It depends on what ones ambitions are. Where I grew up, most voters registered D and most local candidates ran D, which meant that an R often had a free pass to the general election. I imagine that the choice of party that will help one most will often depend more on local dynamics than on how closely one's ideology matches the perceived or stated overall ideology of the party.

    With all that said, it is my feeling that the entrenchment of particular political parties, the tribalism that results, and the strong party affiliations of the electorate contribute to the problems we have far more than what the advantages of one of the parties over the other might be. As a result, I feel (because this is not something that can be demonstrated empirically) that supporting either party directly (as opposed to supporting individual candidates based on their stances) does more harm (by encouraging the entrenchment) than good. So, yeah, I guess I do spurn the question, inasmuch as even if one party is marginally "better" than the other, I don't see any reason why that should impact my actions (or anyone else's, really) when voting, donating to campaigns, or arguing on the internet.

  79. Ursus Maritimus says:

    Is a curfew not a curfew when you call it "lockdown"? Who died and made the governor in-loco-parentis to every inhabitant of the state?

  80. Manatee says:

    @lizard

    "[3]Because policestateusa.com is a site clearly dripping with left-wing liberal progressivism. Why, I had to click through twelve different privilege check dialog boxes just to see the article!"

    One thing I do love about the hypocrisy of certain subsets of the right: for 8 glorious years, people who have always mindlessly defended the police are now willing to turn on them if someone important enough characterizes them as "Obama's police" and characterizes the victims as ordinary real Americans just trying to take a stand against Black Hitler.

    But as, I believe, either Patrick or Ken asked in an excellent post I can't seem to find now, do we really want the help of these unprincipled, fair-weather supporters?

    Also,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lUSNN5WTfY

  81. Manatee says:

    @lizard

    "[3]Because policestateusa.com is a site clearly dripping with left-wing liberal progressivism. Why, I had to click through twelve different privilege check dialog boxes just to see the article!"

    One thing I do love about the hypocrisy of certain subsets of the right: for 8 glorious years, people who have always mindlessly defended the police are now willing to turn on them if someone important enough characterizes them as "Obama's police" and characterizes the victims as ordinary real Americans just trying to take a stand against Black Hitler.

    But as, I believe, either Patrick or Ken asked in an excellent post I can't seem to find now, do we really want the help of these unprincipled, fair-weather supporters?

    Also, I apparently can't seem to make it past the spam filters, but if you haven't seen the new developments in Texas, you should check out "RAW: Dallas Cops Shoot Unarmed Mentally Ill Man Standing in the Street!!" on youtube before it is removed for disturbing the peace or something.

  82. AlphaCentauri says:

    It looks to me like she does put both hands on the door frame right before they push her through.

    That doesn't excuse the excessive force, of course, but claiming that cops lie more than they actually do just makes it harder to convince people about the cases when they're actually lying.

    Something apparently happened or was said off camera that changed her from calm and cooperative to being afraid to go back into the cell, I think.

    Either way, she was outsized and outnumbered. Police are supposed to be trained to put people into spaces where they don't want to go, even if they are drunk and acting like asses. Any beginning martial arts student would have been able to bring his arms down on either side of her shoulders, pull her center of gravity back and break her grip, then march her into the cell with her hands behind her.

  83. Andrew MacKie-Mason says:

    Something apparently happened or was said off camera that changed her from calm and cooperative to being afraid to go back into the cell, I think.

    Either way, she was outsized and outnumbered. Police are supposed to be trained to put people into spaces where they don't want to go, even if they are drunk and acting like asses. Any beginning martial arts student would have been able to bring his arms down on either side of her shoulders, pull her center of gravity back and break her grip, then march her into the cell with her hands behind her.

    None of this seems wrong. The original post still seems inaccurate.

  84. Castaigne says:

    @Clark: I don't see the problem here. After all, this is just the public version of what your friend Vox Day says should be done to a woman if they give you trouble:

    The solution is simple. It is very simple and it's very effective. If a woman physically attacks you in a manner that indicates her serious intent to harm you, then you beat the living shit out of her. Beat her so badly, so painfully, that she fears for her life. Afterwards, calmly explain to her that if she calls the police or tries to press charges after she attacked you and forced you to defend yourself, you'll simply do your 30 days or whatever and then you'll come back and do it again. Only this time, you won't be merely defending yourself. You'll be looking for payback, and payback is a serious bitch. And remind her that the police won't be there until after the fact.

    =====

    @Mr A:

    I'd like to see a law finding any cop automatically guilty of anything anyone accuses him of unless he's able to produce video proving his innocence.

    Wait, what? Is this satire or serious? You actually wish to enshrine "guilt presumed, prove innocence" into law? Do you seriously believe that would be applied only to cops? Or that it would even be Constitutional?

    =====

    @Clark:

    If a government employee is torn between doing nothing and doing something that a jury of 12 people might conclude infringes on the rights of a citizen, I want that government employee to fear that he might lose his house, his pension, and his liberty, and I want him to take the totally safe choice and not infringe a citizen's liberties.

    Very well, please enact such laws.

    I guarantee you that within a year I would have control of the government through blackmail of its employees, using your law. "Don't do things my way, bud? Then it's the frame for you. And your house, pension, and liberty go down the drain."

    I can immediately see what the perfect application of those laws for personal profit would be. I'd like to be surprised that you do not.

    =====

    @Jay_b11175:

    What do you think a "fascist", "police state", or "tyrannical" government should look like?

    Well, let's see. A fascist state should, by definition, be nationalist, totalitarian, a single-party state, under what amounts to dictatorship, practice social darwinism, adopt the Third Position, and engage in class collaboration. At least, those are the core tenets of any actually fascist state.

    A police state should generally have a unitary executive, a complete lack of separation of powers between branches of government, and a partially or totally militarized police force. All human rights are subordinate to the will of the government and police brutality is standard procedure and unable to be prosecuted in any way, shape, or form. I'll go ahead and apply this to a "tyrannical" state as well.

    Some might argue that the USA meets parts of those definitions, but the USA does not meet all of those criteria. An example of a fascist state today is North Korea. Examples of police states today are China, Russia, and Iran.

    If you've met and spoken with so many refugees of such states, how did they describe them?

    My grandmother, who was born in Berlin and grew up in Nazi Germany, described Nazi Germany exactly as the definition that I gave above. With included anti-Semitism. I was never able to ask her seven brothers about it. They all died on the Eastern Front.

    I've also spoken to Cuban refugees, refugees from Soviet Russia, and refugees from Myanmar. They all described different things; none of them could be applied to the USA.

    How many U.S. citizens who have been the victims of the "fascist", "police state", "tyrannical" U.S. government have you met and spoken to?

    Quite a few. Some had actual grievances. Most were full of bullshit. Perhaps we should define "victim" a little better – I doubt you mean all those people who complain to me how the cop pulled them over for doing 80 in a 25 zone.

    Just remember, Germans loved the Nazi party… at least the ones that weren't in jail or in concentration camps.

    No, that's just not true. My grandmother's family – and all other Germans she knew – were just interested in surviving. They didn't have any real interest in politics and they didn't care who got elected…until a madman did. After that, they did what they had to do to survive.

    =====

    @N. Easton:

    Basically Jefferson, like his revolutionary cohort, was totally okay with authoritarian violence and repression so long as it was aimed at lower social castes.

    And he was a bloodthirsty bastard too. Jefferson completely masturbated over The Terror; thought it was the greatest thing to happen since the printing press. People forget that there are reasons Mao formulated the Cultural Revolution from the ideals of Jefferson.

  85. Castaigne, when you say “social darwinism” is a defining feature of fascism, do you mean passively letting natural selection take its course or actively weeding out undesirables?

  86. Castaigne says:

    @Anton Sherwood:

    when you say “social darwinism” is a defining feature of fascism, do you mean passively letting natural selection take its course or actively weeding out undesirables?

    Now that's a good question, as it has been applied differently in various fascist regimes. You have the well-known Nazi position of actively weeding out undesirables, especially via Aktion T4 program. Then you have the Francoist version of benign neglect, simply leaving all care of the "unfit" to whatever religious charitable organizations might exist.

    In general, though, fascist social Darwinism is usually done through state planned and controlled human breeding through scieence and eugenics; national policies are the foremost driver of the type. A strong elitist component deriving from nationalism is also involved; the Darwinism generally extends to a particular nationalist stereotype that is seen as the ideal which is to be striven for.

    The best exploration of the topic can be found in Nazism, Fascism, & Social Darwinism.