When Police Abuse Is 'Normal'

[Anti Federalist]

When Police Abuse Is 'Normal'

http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/03/wh...buse-is-normal

A new documentary on militarized police focuses on mundane, everyday, "legitimate" abuses.

Jesse Walker|Oct. 3, 2016 12:15 pm

I haven't seen the new documentary Do Not Resist, but Radley Balko's review at The Washington Post makes it sound like a must-watch. According to Balko, the movie avoids the sort of footage that usually dominates discussions of abusive policing: You don't see anyone killed, you don't see anyone beaten, you don't see a SWAT team storming the wrong address. "What makes this movie so powerful," he writes, "is its terrifying portrayal of the mundanities of modern policing."

It's one thing to read about a "dynamic entry" drug raid in which the police mistakenly or intentionally kill someone, or in which someone mistakenly or intentionally kills a police officer. It's awful and tragic and unnecessary. "Do Not Resist" doesn't show one of those. It instead shows the sort of drug raid that's far more common. The movie depicts the raid from the beginning, as the officers from the Richland County Sheriff's Department tactical team are meeting to discuss strategy. Some are wearing T-shirts with the tactical team's logo. It's a human skull imposed over two crossed AR-15s.

There are no children at the residence, the lead officer assures his colleagues. (There were.) There would be a significant quantity of illegal drugs at the house, another says. (There weren't.) The tactical team then proceeds to raid the home of a black family in Richland County. Most officers storm the front door with their guns while one shatters some side windows as a distraction. Minutes go by. The officers' body language eventually shows signs of frustration as their search for contraband continues to come up empty. Finally, someone finds a book bag with traces of marijuana at the bottom—not enough to smoke, much less sell. They arrest a young black man with long braids for possession....

[The arrestee] runs a landscaping company to help pay for his education. The man later tells the officer that he was on his way to pick up some lawnmowers that morning. Knowing that he's about to be arrested, he asks the officer if he could tell his employee that he was arrested and won't be able to pick up the lawnmowers. He then gives the officer $876 in cash and asks it to give it to his employee to go pick up the mowers, along with a weed-eater.

Instead, the officer confiscates the money under civil asset forfeiture laws.

The rest of the review is here, and a trailer is below...

[jct74]

trailer


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zt7bl5Z_oA

[PierzStyx]

[Anti Federalist]

Cannot rep that enough.

The only good cop is one who resigns.

[HVACTech]

Cannot rep that enough.

The only good cop is one who resigns.

so, MR 'anti-federalist" have you figured out what a "Federation" is yet?

or are you in league with those who do not care what that is?

[Anti Federalist]

so, MR 'anti-federalist" have you figured out what a "Federation" is yet?

or are you in league with those who do not care what that is?

Something I am "anti" to.

Yes, that is me, in league with the Dark Side.

[pcosmar]

When exactly are the Armed Enforcers of Authoritarians, not offensive?

They are offensive to Freedom and Liberty,, always at hand to deprive some of it.

[Todd]

Cannot rep that enough.

The only good cop is one who resigns.

That quote can be applied to politicians as well. And Ron remained in the belly of the beast to try to change it. And he was not a bad cop.

[Anti Federalist]

That quote can be applied to politicians as well. And Ron remained in the belly of the beast to try to change it. And he was not a bad cop.

No, it really can't.

A politician is under no compunction to write or enact bad or unjust law, or any law at all for that matter.

Ron was a hero in Congress precisely because he said no and did not enact bad law.

A cop's job is to enforce the law.

All of it.

And a great deal of "the law" is unjust, wicked or cruel, as Higgs rightly notes.

Even if a fair minded cop "lets you off" off an unjust law, the terror of a "near miss" of prosecution remains, which is unjust in it's own right.

Therefore, there are no good cops.

[Anti Federalist]

That quote can be applied to politicians as well. And Ron remained in the belly of the beast to try to change it. And he was not a bad cop.

No, it really can't.

A politician is under no compunction to write or enact bad or unjust law, or any law at all for that matter.

Ron was a hero in Congress precisely because he said no and did not enact bad law.

A cop's job is to enforce the law.

All of it.

And a great deal of "the law" is unjust, wicked or cruel, as Higgs rightly notes.

Even if a fair minded cop "lets you off" off an unjust law, the terror of a "near miss" of prosecution remains, which is unjust in it's own right.

Therefore, there are no good cops.

[HVACTech]

Something I am "anti" to.

Yes, that is me, in league with the Dark Side.

I agree.

league, union and federation all have the very same meaning. they are in fact, indistinguishable between one and another.

in my country, it was the anti-federalists that $#@!ed things up.
what is my proof?

the US Constitution, does NOT have anything to do with "Rights" (read it yourself azzhat)

people today... think that they have... "Constitutional rights" can we agree on that? if so....

where did they get that idea from? you. the addition of your precious "Bill of Rights" did not do a damn bit of good.
in fact...
the Bill of Rights.. is what was used to bastardize the original federation.

[HVACTech]

When exactly are the Armed Enforcers of Authoritarians, not offensive?

They are offensive to Freedom and Liberty,, always at hand to deprive some of it.

that is why our founders chose sheriffs over Police .
one works for the people. the other works for a corporation.

(this is not a minor distinction)

[AZJoe]

[Anti Federalist]

where did they get that idea from? you. the addition of your precious "Bill of Rights" did not do a damn bit of good.
in fact...
the Bill of Rights.. is what was used to bastardize the original federation.

I disagree.

We would be living under an even more oppressive state than what we have now.

The only shreds of freedom left, to property, to be free from house to house searches, to own guns, to have some semblance of free speech or not be tortured, only exist because of the bill of rights.

Your federation was a bastard to begin with, a half assed counter revolutionary coup, carried out in secret, that has grown to enslave us all.

There was no $#@!ing it up worse than what it already was.

Nice going, $#@!.

[HVACTech]

I disagree.

We would be living under an even more oppressive state than what we have now.

The only shreds of freedom left, to property, to be free from house to house searches, to own guns, to have some semblance of free speech or not be tortured, only exist because of the bill of rights.

Your federation was a bastard to begin with, a half assed counter revolutionary coup, carried out in secret, that has grown to enslave us all.

There was no $#@!ing it up worse than what it already was.

Nice going, $#@!.

it was a simple agreement to work together.
"Rights" could be determined by the members.
or not at all.
it was your group that $#@!ed it up by including "Rights" to begin with.
and you KNOW it.

this point was argued in the federalist papers. #84. (mod edit)


"Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The Constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. It is alleged that many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84

get your $#@! together. the Constitution and the bill of rights are NOT one and the same.
but you KNOW that.. don't you?

you are here to confuse people who do not know any better.
and that is just a plain fact. ~hugz~

[Anti Federalist]

How did a bill of rights create a president/king?

Or an EPA?

Or a UN treaty?

it was a simple agreement to work together.
"Rights" could be determined by the members.
or not at all.
it was your group that $#@!ed it up by including "Rights" to begin with.
and you KNOW it.

this point was argued in the federalist papers. #84. (mod edit)


"Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The Constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. It is alleged that many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84

get your $#@! together. the Constitution and the bill of rights are NOT one and the same.
but you KNOW that.. don't you?

you are here to confuse people who do not know any better.
and that is just a plain fact. ~hugz~

[HVACTech]

How did a bill of rights create a president/king?

Or an EPA?

Or a UN treaty?

are you playing dumb? or is this the real thing?

[Ender]

it was a simple agreement to work together.
"Rights" could be determined by the members.
or not at all.
it was your group that $#@!ed it up by including "Rights" to begin with.
and you KNOW it.

this point was argued in the federalist papers. #84. azzhat.


"Federalist No. 84 is notable for presenting the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed United States Constitution. The Constitution, as originally written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. It is alleged that many Americans at the time opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights: if such a bill were created, they feared, this might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84

get your $#@! together. the Constitution and the bill of rights are NOT one and the same.
but you KNOW that.. don't you?

you are here to confuse people who do not know any better.
and that is just a plain fact. ~hugz~

You are quoting Hamilton as the supreme being on the Bill of Rights? That's like quoting Satan on the meaning of Jesus' words. The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to make a powerful central government; it worked beautifully.

And stop calling @Anti Federalist names; if you want people to listen to you, act with reason and intelligence, not insults and name-calling.

[HVACTech]

You are quoting Hamilton as the supreme being on the Bill of Rights? That's like quoting Satan on the meaning of Jesus' words. The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to make a powerful central government; it worked beautifully.

why should a League be concerned with "rights" @Ender? there is no point or purpose in that.
and that was CERTAINLY NOT the reason that they needed to work together.

when it comes to a mutual defense pact. ( hint, hint... ) Unions can be very powerful.
the Declaration of Independence would have served just fine as a basis for the determination of "Rights"

are you pretending not to know these things? or is this genuine Ignorance on display here?

I now have reason to suspect that neither one of you , @Ender or @Anti Federalist know what a federation is.

what does a federation have to do with "Rights"?
why don't you start there... and get back with me..


federation
[fed-uh-rey-shuh n]

Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
the act of federating or uniting in a league.
2.
the formation of a political unity, with a central government, by a number of separate states, each of which retains control of its own internal affairs.
3.
a league or confederacy.
4.
a federated body formed by a number of nations, states, societies, unions, etc., each retaining control of its own internal affairs.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/federation

did that help? do you see ANY mention of "Rights"? anywhere?

[Anti Federalist]

do you see ANY mention of "Rights"? anywhere?

"To Secure the Blessing of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity".

And it failed.

As predicted and warned.

[Anti Federalist]

do you see ANY mention of "Rights"? anywhere?

"To Secure the Blessing of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity".

And it failed.

As predicted and warned.

[Anti Federalist]

are you playing dumb? or is this the real thing?

So you have no answer?

Of course you don't, because to suggest that somehow the bill of rights created the king/president, is ridiculous, on the face of it.

Try harder.

[HVACTech]

"To Secure the Blessing of Liberty, to ourselves and our posterity".

And it failed.

As predicted and warned.

why do you keep skipping the word "federation" ?
in general. "Constitution" is a much larger word for you...

it was designed as a military and trade compact. why you ask?

The War of 1812 was a military conflict that lasted from June 18, 1812 to February 18, 1815, fought between the United States of America and the United Kingdom, its North American colonies, and its Native American allies.

what is YOUR excuse for bringing "Rights" into this diametric?

if you want to play stupid on purpose....
admit it. and dance like the jester that you are.


the CONstitution was never designed to protect your "Rights" fool.
that task was left for you to do.

the candy ass anti federalist's cried poor baby...
and that is why the Bill of Rights was tacked on, 3 years later.

pussy.

[HVACTech]

So you have no answer?

Of course you don't, because to suggest that somehow the bill of rights created the king/president, is ridiculous, on the face of it.

Try harder.

are you off your med's again?
if so. I apologize. I do try to be kind to the ignorant.....

[Anti Federalist]

what is YOUR excuse for bringing "Rights" into this diametric?

Because one of the prime directives of the document says that is the reason for it exist.

[bunklocoempire]

Forced to pay tribute to the state god of Soteria, but I supposedly have religious freedom.

[CCTelander]

You are quoting Hamilton as the supreme being on the Bill of Rights? That's like quoting Satan on the meaning of Jesus' words. The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to make a powerful central government; it worked beautifully.

And stop calling @Anti Federalist names; if you want people to listen to you, act with reason and intelligence, not insults and name-calling.

To that one, anyone who refuses to worship at the alter of the Almighty CONstitution is a heretic. Best to simply ignore IMO.

[HVACTech]

To that one, anyone who refuses to worship at the alter of the Almighty CONstitution is a heretic. Best to simply ignore IMO.

it would help if you knew what you were talking about. there is NOTHING mystical or magical about the word itself.
all Republics have a Constitution. even China.
"Constitution of the People's Republic of China"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...ublic_of_China

did you know that?

[Anti Federalist]

Bump

[Weston White]

get your $#@! together. the Constitution and the bill of rights are NOT one and the same.

I would tend to disagree, the 'Bill of Rights' merely serves as a container for the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. For as noted by Hamilton: "The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS."