SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
North Miami Police say they responded on July 20 to the area of Northeast 14th Avenue and Northeast 127th Street for a report of an armed man threatening suicide.
The "armed man" was a 23-year-old autistic patient who had wandered away from a nearby mental health center. He was sitting on the ground, playing with a toy truck.
47 year old behavioral therapist Charles Kinsey, a black man, was attending to the patient.
Multiple cops, armed with rifles, responded to the scene.
Kinsey was hit in the leg by one bullet. A photo shows Kinsey lying on his back with both hands in the air.
Speaking from his hospital bed Wednesday July 20 to a reporter for WSVN TV, Kinsey said "when it hit me I had my hands in the air, and I'm thinking I just got shot! And I'm saying, 'Sir, why did you shoot me?' and his words to me were, 'I don't know'."
The police administered no first aid. "They flipped me over, and I'm faced down in the ground, with cuffs on, waiting on the rescue squad to come", Kinsey said. "I'd say about 20, about 20 minutes it took the rescue squad to get there. And I was like, bleeding."
No gun was found at the scene.
At a Thursday July 21 press conference, the Miami-Dade Police Benevolent Association said the officer was a member of the SWAT team. The head of the PBA told reporters the officer was too far away to hear what Kinsey was saying before he fired.
Heavy.com Heavy.com with video
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956:
A Florida police officer shot and wounded an autistic man's black caretaker, authorities said, in an incident purportedly captured on cellphone video that shows the caretaker lying down with his arms raised before being shot.
Source: LA Times
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Friday July 22 2016, @12:14PM
The "authorities" must demonstrate that lawlessness among cops will not be tolerated in the slightest. If the claimed circumstances prove to be true, this cop must be punished exactly as a citizen would be punished: attempted murder, reckless negligence, and so on.
There are more citizens than cops. The cops need the respect of the citizens or they will lose the moral authority to do their jobs.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by quintessence on Friday July 22 2016, @12:28PM
More- if the cops are lawless, there is no obligation to the law.
What you have is a civil war being played out in slow motion as a vote of no confidence is done with bullets.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 22 2016, @01:50PM
But I'm super encouraged by the celerity with which Obama and the rest of officialdom are rushing to adopt new policies and rules of engagement to curb police violence.
Oh, wait.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @04:04PM
I call bullshit. The feds have no authority to dictate any state or local level policies relating to the police/sheriffs unless they takeover the individual police force(s).
There's lots of stuff not to like about <insert local, state or federal office holder here> but when you're going to damn them for something it should be something they are responsible for and is (or should be) within their control. The "we want smaller government" factions would lose their shit if the current administration even proposed federal guidelines or oversight of local police (let alone tried to enforce them).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by forkazoo on Friday July 22 2016, @06:57PM
They certainly have authority to stop giving things like DHS grants for ever more weapons, and the 'green to blue' pipeline for surplus military hardware. Likewise, they have the authority to focus DOJ investigations on things like civil rights violations and to throw cops under federal prisons rather than entering occasional and mostly toothless "consent decrees." Don't underestimate the capacity of a pissed off federal government to enact changes even in areas where it isn't clear that it has 100% jurisdiction.
The federal government just mostly isn't that pissed off yet.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 22 2016, @09:32PM
At least one guest on Fawx News in recent weeks was promoting just that - consolidation of departments to standardize procedures and training. At least in my state the town academies are shared, except for the State Stormtroopers.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 23 2016, @08:48PM
The Feds did an end run around all state and local laws, long ago. It's called "federal funding". Do you know how seat belt laws came to be enacted? The insurance companies called again and again for mandatory seat belt use. Individually and collectively, the states told the insurance companies to pack it up their asses. So, the insurance companies started lobbying the NHTSA, congress, and everyone in Washington who would grant them an audience. The Feds told the states to pass seat belt laws. States told the Feds to go screw themselves. This went on for a few years, until the Feds replied with, "Pass the seat belt laws, or you'll lose federal highway money."
The Feds have the same tools available to impose any restrictions they want on police forces. At a guess, there are probably fewer than ten percent of all police forces in this country who don't accept federal money. Those ten percent probably accept state money, which has been given to the state by the feds. But, any department that accepts no federal money directly is probably just some podunk town out in the middle of nowhere.
The Feds can get their way, because they control the purse strings.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @12:55PM
The problem is that the profession of being a police officer attracts some bad elements who should never have been allowed to wear a badge.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by IndigoFreak on Friday July 22 2016, @01:28PM
No, the real problem is the police are no longer accountable for their actions. Which then allows bad actors to get away with anything. This system also allows well meaning, but inept police to keep their jobs as well.
Every profession attracts bad elements. Even priests have this issue. What allows that issue to flourish is the blue line which backs up bad policing with lies and evidence planting, a prosecutor that needs to work WITH police but then have to charge them as well, and a population who generally has believed that cops never lie and should always be trusted which lets them off the hook when someone does get charged. I'm probably missing other systems that end up protecting bad police, but those are some big ones.
Once police can be held accountable for their actions, they will start to be trusted again, and the bad elements will be eliminated as well.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Friday July 22 2016, @01:57PM
Every profession attracts bad elements
True, but if you're a sadist or a racist, policing is the job you dreamed about when you were the schoolyard bully. A good cop has to have a delicate balance of aggression and restraint, and that can be hard to select for.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday July 22 2016, @03:01PM
I keep thinking of clockwork orange (the movie) where the 'droogies' grew up and became cops.
'fitting jobs for us, who are now of job-age'
bullies are attracted to jobs that let them continue to be a bully. and we don't seem to weed those guys out, and in fact, we encourage that behavior.
our whole system needs redoing. its too messed up for little fixes. I seriously think we need a full revolution and all that it entails. yes, I realize what I just said. it is not an easy think to ask for, but sometimes you have to redo things rather than bughunt in a mess of spaghetti code.
its like a bad marriage. do you try to keep fixing all the problems or do you just say 'fuck it' and start all over with someone new? many times, you cannot fix things once they are so totally broken. and it hurts to give something up and start all over again; but I think this is what we have now and little fixes just prolong the agony (of both sides, in fact).
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @05:08PM
Vote with your feet and create somewhere new.
Seasteading is doable today, and as anyone with sense knows, creating a nation isn't about being legal, it is about getting enough people backing you to claim legitimacy and eventually historic precedent in order to continue existing. Oh yes... Big guns and efficiently violent combat forces to retain it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 22 2016, @04:38PM
The police are as accountable for their actions as they ever were... it should be improving, but doesn't seem to be improving quickly enough to notice.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @09:29PM
Yes, but the quality of policing has taken a nosedive. Very few can lay claim to being peace officers, let alone public servants. Accountability is meaningless when you can't even reach a bare minimum standard.
I honestly feel bad for the police. I doubt most of the officers intended to kill anyone, and they will have to have that on their conscious about how it all went wrong as well as being despised.
It's plainly obvious something is broke in the contract between the governors and the governed, and no one really knows what is to be done about it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 23 2016, @01:52AM
Again, I think the current news cycle is fanning the flames, but we've had cops shooting "innocent kids" more or less since cops got guns. We've had riots after cops are acquitted of manslaughter my whole life and then some, seems like every few years.
There are plenty of "community servant" programs, improving relations, etc. You may not remember the 1960s when "the pigs" were enforcers for things like the draft, Kent State, etc. Most cops have risen above that adversarial role.
With over 700,000 sworn officers on duty, it's a miracle there aren't "bad shoots" every week. It's like a soccer game with 300,000 attendees - by the odds, somebody's gonna die during the game, if it were a truly random cross sample, somebody out of 300,000 would die of old age within a few hours.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @03:22AM
It's a bit deeper than the occasional shooting.
You have primarily minorities detailing their encounters with police, and it ain't pretty. It may be a small sampling but it's there, and it's prevalent enough to establish a pattern. The shootings are just the most egregious manifestations.
While police have improved from the race riots in the 60s, were are almost to the point of having them again.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday July 23 2016, @09:09PM
I disagree. Cops were being brought to heel, prior to 9/11/01, for various transgressions. Citizens groups, among other things, were demanding that the cops break off high speed pursuitst that led through neighborhoods. Then, the towers came tumbling down, and the cops no longer listened to citizens groups. Another issue involved the use of deadly force, in pursuit of a suspect. You know - the unarmed black male who gets shot in the back. Headway was being made, in some places, and then, 9/11.
After the attacks on 9/11, law enforcement took a couple dozen long steps backward in the accountability department. And, the fearful among us were happy to see it. Better to kill dozens of innocent men, than to allow one terrorist to go free.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 23 2016, @09:54PM
See, I don't think the rules on high speed pursuit have been repealed, nor even the enforcement rate of those rules (which has never been 100%)... It's always been bad form to kill people, but, then again, around about 1998 or so an off duty cop in my neighborhood shot a petty thief, in the back as he was running away 100' down the sidewalk (in front of my back-door neighbor), there was a huge investigation, apparently the cop was fearing for his safety because the thief allegedly threw a brick through his window, so he ran out in the street and shot him as he ran away - he got 30 days off with pay and a letter in his file advising him not to do something like that again.
Maybe your local perception is different, but mine is: the regulations are getting tighter, slowly, but overall "boys in blue will be boys in blue" and out of the nearly 1 million of them out there, once every few weeks one makes national news for screwing up. I think they're actually starting to calm down about being video taped - 10 years ago lots of them would go off the deep end if they thought a citizen might be recording them, still happens once in awhile, but not nearly as much as back then. All in all, I think the ubiquity of cell-phone video recording is making a larger percentage of bad stuff surface in the news, while the actual rate of "pigs in heat" is declining.
Maybe it's because I'm aging and they treat me with more respect, but I've had a slow, steady decline of unpleasant encounters with law enforcement through the last 30 years.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Friday July 22 2016, @09:36PM
Police have never been hald accountable for these kinds of actions. These kinds of shootings have always happened. The difference is that now there are cell phones, body cams, or dash cams everywhere to record all of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @04:35PM
This is true, we got some hooligans here that emigrate to the US with the specific goal of joining the police force.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday July 22 2016, @10:05PM
Isn't that what happened in 1620?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Saturday July 23 2016, @02:07AM
Prolly not--
From what I've read, the first use of the word "Police" in the modern sense didn't occur for another twenty-odd years. :)
-
--from "Sweeney Todd the Barber," R.P.Weston, as performed by Stanley Holloway
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @01:45PM
Additionally, since cops always claim to be heroic and being the best of the best and the top of the cream, they can rightfully be held to a higher standard. The punishment for a cop therefore needs to be even harsher than for a regular civie.
Either that, or stop claiming you're so great, because clearly you aren't!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday July 22 2016, @01:53PM
This is the key concept. If I were elected mayor or something, the first thing I'd impress on the cops is that the most important tool they carry is not their gun but their badge, the symbol that says that they act with the authority of the government.
And I should point out that the cops lost the moral authority to do their jobs in urban environments decades ago (if they ever had it), thanks to the behavior that led to scandals like Rampart [wikipedia.org]. According to memoirs written by people who grew up in, say, the barrios of L.A. and inner city New York, the police have no more legitimacy than the Crips.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Friday July 22 2016, @02:18PM
The "authorities" must demonstrate that lawlessness among cops will not be tolerated in the slightest.
100% agreed.
this cop must be punished exactly as a citizen would be punished
But actually that may not be the correct approach, either. IMO, the larger problem isn't the degree of penality, it is that far too often investigations into police misconduct fail for a variety of reasons, importantly colleagues covering up for each other against better knowledge. But to do something about that problem, you do have to try to understand the other side as well:
Getting into shitty situations, regularly, is part of a police officer's job description. In fact, pretty much, it is their job description. They have a lot of opportunities to mess up, including opportunities to mess up big. I think there is a sentiment among cops - and even a well-reasoned sentiment - that every police officer will make a mistake one day. Some more, some less desastrous. They don't think it would be right to send their colleagues to jail for stuff that could happen to any of them on a bad day. So they gloss over each others bits of misconduct, are hostile to internal investigators, etc.
I don't have to go into the irony on how it is exactly this sort of behavior furthers the alienation between cops and citizens, and, in turn, makes encounters between cops and citizens ever more dangerous - for both sides. But to address it, I think we'll need a two-part strategy:
1) Absolutely do make sure to investigate properly, and place blame where blame is due.
2) After finding an officer guilty of misconduct, however, be very, very lenient WRT to the degree of punishment, even in grave cases. Except perhaps be really strict about any kind of cover up.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Friday July 22 2016, @02:56PM
that's horse-shit!
when you carry a gun under color of law, you can end a person's life and GET AWAY WITH IT. this has to stop and the fact that our poor little babies in blue are 'feared for their lives' every day - that does not man jack shit. can't do the job well? don't do it and go become some other paid thug, but don't be a paid thug under color of law!
if you have legal authority to carry a gun and kill me, the penalties should be 10x as high if you screw up. I don't carry a gun and I can't 'get away with it' like you do, mr. pig. if you screw up, people DIE. to ensure you wack jobs don't go all big-headed on us and start thinking you're better than us (yeah, too late) the penalties should be so harsh that they'd think twice about shooting innocent people. if they were personally liable, this bullshit would end tomorrow. a handful of lawsuits that empty a pig's bank account - that would send a message to them loud and clear. this shit has got to stop.
but we, no suck their cocks and give them even more room. 'they have a tough job!'. yeah right. so do many others, but we don't idolize them and give them military power that could wipe out a whole town in a few hours.
with such power - there has to be harsh punishments if the law guys don't respect the law.
the only thing human beings understand is pleasure and pain. they get their pleasure from being 'big guys' and flaunting it around us, bossing us around, getting away with it. they should, then, get their pain from citizen courts that strip them of their rank and convert them to poor people, pennyless and unemployable. they'll soon understand and fall back in line again.
we won't do this. the republican bootlickers love authorities and will never cross them (at least in public). so we have this stalemate where we allow our thugs in blue to run amok and no one punishes them in any serious way. we give them paid vacations, in fact!
punish them so severely that they won't do bad shit anymore. its how to teach children. and that's all I have to say about this right now. sometimes, adults need to be treated as misbehaving children.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Friday July 22 2016, @04:00PM
Well, I kind of expected to provoke disagreement, but I'll try to explain some points better.
1. Enforcing the law is a two step process: a) Establishing who did what, and what they did wrong. b) Determine an appropriate punishment. Essentially my point is that our actual problem is in step a). And if we don't solve that, step b) is completely irrelevant. And in fact overly strict expectations about b) can be a hindrance for a).
2. Cops actually killing people (for no good reason) is terrible. But it's merely the tip of the iceberg. What I am actually worried about more is the many levels of roughing before that. Twisted arms, punshes, guns drawn for no good reason, that sort of thing. The sort of thing were any decent lawyer will tell you to "swallow your anger and don't complain. I do believe your story, and not only because I'm paid to do so, but if you try to get justice, all you'll get is a counter-claim for resistance. And they will win, because they'll summon five officer to support their story, no matter how wrong it was."
Odds are fairly good that a bad officer will do a lot of that sort of bullying, before they ever get in a situation to do lethal damage. But the problem is it will never be on their record, because victims are rightfully afraid to speak up, and if they do, colleagues will still cover up. My point is: Work hard to make sure it does get reported, and it does get on their record (instead of resorting to double edged means such as this , for example). Actually punishing any single misconduct is totally second to that, and in fact it is probably detrimental to the goal.
3. No my story is not a well-rounded plan. You'd have to flank it with many additional measures to make it work. More internal investigators, independent observers, etc. Importantly, however, you will have to spin it in a way that the average police officer will understand that such measures are meant to help identify mistakes, not to end heaps of careers.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by mhajicek on Friday July 22 2016, @04:20PM
I think the solution is pretty simple. Mandate that all police interactions with the public be recorded in both audio and video, with the recordings automatically uploaded for the public to view, with a reasonable delay (6 hrs?) for security.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @06:59PM
Remember Eric Garner?
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday July 22 2016, @07:45PM
and any loss of time or part (audio or video) constitutes an automatic 'the cop lied' verdict.
if they can't ensure that their equipment is working, they have no business using it. we will soon depend on this a/v recording. its going to happen and no one can stop it. but we have to make sure that 'oops!' stuff does not happen when its most convenient for the cops. like, right before he punches your lights out, a sudden loss of a/v recording, or the video is pointing up in the sky, on purpose.
any bullshit that gets in the way of fact-finding should be an automatic win for the accused/citizen.
if you don't do it that way, it WILL be abused and untrustable.
oh, and the film has to be digitally signed. we all know that. they don't and they will fight us every step of the way. expect it. but lets fight them and get what's right.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday July 22 2016, @09:21PM
What happens when the police film me,and I have no problem with the interaction? Why is footage of me (talking to the cops, which may be taken out of context) being uploaded to the internet? Or if they even arrest me, but I'm later found innocent. But the arrest video follows me forever.
Having them record their actions for review in situations like this make sense. But controlling viewing is the most important part of a policy.
(Score: 2) by jcross on Friday July 22 2016, @09:56PM
Good point. Maybe some kind of escrow system?
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday July 22 2016, @10:06PM
Probably requiring some nasty bureaucracy. Showing up in person (to verify you're on the tape you're requesting), knowing the time and date and officer, and paying a fee to get a DVD burned.
All of which is not great, but I don't know a better system.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @10:55PM
I think the solution is pretty simple. Mandate that all police interactions with the public be recorded in both audio and video, with the recordings automatically uploaded for the public to view, with a reasonable delay (6 hrs?) for security.
What happens when the gang informant enters the police station to give testimony against his fellow gang members? Or when the abused spouse reports to the police how his wife has been threatening him with a knife? Or when the police run into somebody doing something legal but embarrassing or stigmatized by society (say... nude sunbathing in their private backyard)?
I assume these don't go on public record. But now you have gaps you need to account for, and when there is a gap, people will assume maleficence.
I personally think that having mandatory public records of interactions is probably a good idea, but it's far from being "pretty simple" once you start to think of a way to implement it.
(Score: 1) by nethead on Friday July 22 2016, @09:03PM
You lost me at "Mr. Pig." And I'm an old hippie.
How did my SN UID end up over 3 times my /. UID?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @09:40PM
Interesting. Do you hold the same view of punishment for other crimes? Stiffer sentences and such across the board?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @03:37PM
A mistake is arresting someone you dont have the right to. A mistake is violating someones 4th ammend right.
If it involves your weapon, that is NOT A MISTAKE.
I am a veteran. We were taught you do NOT point your weapon at something you're not willing to destroy. Therefore if its even drawn it should not be aimed at ANYONE that you cannot VERIFY with CERTAINTY that they are a danger.
This BS about "fearing for their life" from unarmed or lightly armed, or armed but nonthreatening people should NOT be an excuse. That is NOT a mistake. Call it what it is cowardice.
Something else they taught us in the military. No matter what you are ALWAYS responsible for where that round ends up, even if it is an AD (accidental discharge). You ARE responsible.
In this case the COP IS RESPONSIBLE, and should be HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @05:15PM
Albeit at a much older age than he himself learned it (he was a military brat).
You don't pull or point a gun unless you're ready to kill with it. You may be able to resolve the situation peacefully with just the presence of it, but once the gun is out of the holster you have to be prepared to either kill, or accept the consequences if you or somebody else is killed as a result.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by donkeyhotay on Friday July 22 2016, @06:56PM
I am also a veteran and everything you say is correct.
There are a couple of things I've noticed about this story. My comments are based on different statements that have been made about what happened, mostly from the police. I don't know *precisely* how things played out, and it does not sound like the police have figured out yet what story they're going with. They seem to be floating different ideas, trying to see which one "plays" best.
1) The police have (supposedly) claimed that they were too far away to hear what the caregiver was saying, yet they also claim to have been "negotiating" with the two men. Just how far away were they? How were they "negotiating" if they could not hear what was being said? They claim that they thought the man who was holding a toy truck, was holding a gun. That must have been some distance, even if they did not have any binoculars. Didn't anyone have any binoculars? Not even the SWAT team?
2) They are now claiming that the officer who fired his weapon was aiming for the autistic man who was holding a toy truck. Damn! Just how far away WERE they? In my prime, I qualified as sharpshooter in the Navy. That's not bad, but I would think nowhere nearly good enough to be on a SWAT team. Yet, I would still have no problem getting, say, a 20-inch grouping at 200 meters with iron sights. I could surely do better than that with a scope. It sounds like this SWAT officer missed his intended target by at least a meter, maybe more -- with a scope, no less. And, again, the man has a scope. Could he still not discern that the autistic man had a toy and not a gun? I repeat: just how far away WERE they?
3) It sounds like the cops were so far away that they had absolutely no idea what was going on.
This seems pretty cowardly for police work. I don't consider myself particularly brave, but I'm pretty sure I would have no problem holstering my gun and calmly walking up close enough to get a good look at the situation. It might be a little scary, but that's life. Sometimes you have to suck up your balls and keep a tight asshole.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Saturday July 23 2016, @06:19AM
they claim that they thought the man who was holding a toy truck, was holding a gun. That must have been some distance
An obvious conclusion then: the police may aim and shoot at any group of people, as long as the officers are sufficiently far away to not see clearly what's happening within that group.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday July 22 2016, @08:37PM
A mistake is arresting someone you dont have the right to. A mistake is violating someones 4th ammend right.
Neither of those are merely mistakes; they are egregious violations of someone's liberties, and should result in harsh punishments.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday July 22 2016, @02:32PM
I wouldn't say attempted murder, but reckless endangerment. If I were an investigator and heard that an experienced cop "don't know" why he shot someone, I'd have him immediatly fired and charged. Obviously they arent fit for the high pressure duty of a police officer and acted in an unprofessional and reckless manor.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Arik on Friday July 22 2016, @04:01PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Friday July 22 2016, @04:38PM
I was thinking something similar for a while, but then they started saying there were 3 shots fired. That is hard to pass off as an accident.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @03:15PM
Not just that, but they'll be on the receiving end of vigilante justice more and more if they don't start policing themselves.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday July 22 2016, @03:19PM
Trump actually mentioned that in his Speech yesterday.
It was not clear what he was actually going to do about it though.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Friday July 22 2016, @08:12PM
Well that's Trump. He's really good a clearly identifying issues. But completely unclear what he's going to do about it.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday July 23 2016, @01:14AM
The cops need the respect of the citizens or they will lose the moral authority to do their jobs.
To quote H Beam Piper: "I always thought that when authority began inspiring contempt, it had stopped being authority."
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.