Gyroscopic Investing

The "huh, maybe we don't need to arrest everyone and society won't go to shit" meme is gaining steam...

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ts/384126/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/nyreg ... ating.html

Pointedstick wrote:

WiseOne wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: I think if we want to end it, we need to not have an underclass, hopefully, by bringing them into the fold of normal society.

+1!

The question of course is how to accomplish that.  Get them off welfare?  Tried & failed.  Midnight basketball?  Tried & failed.  Housing, medical, and food assistance?  Stricter sentencing to serve as a deterrent for would-be criminals?  Anti-segregation laws?  None of these have done a thing.

Another alternative might be to allow them to live separately: anti-anti-segregation, perhaps. Let them live in their own enclaves, and let them be policed by members of their own communities. And then wash your hands. But that's too mean. We're far too advanced and progressive a society to consider something so barbaric as leaving people alone to their own devices and requiring that they own the consequences of their decisions.

Have you read Robert Heinlein's short story "Coventry"?  It's that line of thinking exactly.  Somebody needs to invent the force field first though.

Here I had this great simple question all teed up, and then I see you all have beat me to it.  But anyway...

Can we all agree that there are too many laws?
And that more laws means more police enforcement?

TennPaGa wrote: But I was curious about the first part:

I regret to admit that I am slowly changing my mind on this subject. While it always sucks when cops oppress innocent people or use unnecessary force on the guilty, the unhappy notion that such things are required to contain an entrenched underclass haunts me. What if all of this brutality is necessary? Or at least, if not necessary, what if it is the natural, unavoidable result of asking them to police people who are violent, lawbreaking, and not of their tribe?

I would disagree that oppressing innocent people is necessary.  Necessary for what?

However, I can understand that it might be a "natural unavoidable result of asking them to police people who are violent, lawbreaking, and not of their tribe".

Basically, but let me go into a bit more detail. And keep in mind that I don't mean to endorse or legitimize anything; I just try to understand things.

Blacks in America are chronic lawbreakers. Members of the African-American community commit far more crime--and here I'll even limit it to violent crime, not bullshit made-up crime--than their numbers would suggest. As an example, according to the FBI, African-American people (13% of the population) committed 38% of the murders, compared to white people (78% of the population) who committed 31% of the murders. There is simply no way around these facts.

Now we have the police. The police are charged with preventing and punishing lawbreaking. Their culture is a "law and order" culture. Follow the rules. Keep your chin up. Respect authority. Do as you're told. Address your betters as "sir." That kind of thing.

Now, in many parts of the country, people who are members of this culture are routinely forced to interact with members of a community that I don't believe it would be inappropriate to say have a culture of both petty and serious lawbreaking. The results seem as tragic as they are inevitable.

You could point to Asians à la WiseOne's Chinatown story as a counter-example of where petty lawbreaking doesn't lead to routine oppression, but I think there are a couple of reasons why Asians and Asian-Americans don't have the same police problems:
1. They commit virtually no violent crimes
2. they share with police a culture of intrinsically respecting authority figures
3. they are widely admired in American society for their hard work, intelligence, and propensities for achieving success no matter what

African-Americans, by contrast, do not exhibit these traits in similar numbers, and as a result receive very little similar respect from the police.

All of this basically primes police for disdain and conflict when they come into contact with African-Americans who, in their estimation, are by and large a bunch of disrespectful, lawless barbarians. Regardless of whether or not this is correct, it seems to be an unavoidable conclusion to those who value law, order, authority, and respect.

Again, I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is certainly a thing.


Now, I agree that reducing the number of stupid laws would reduce friction between police and black people. But only some of it. That might have saved Eric Garner. But it would not have saved Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin, both of whom committed "real" crimes (at the minimum, robbery and assault, respectively).

Fred has a great column on something similar to this. If they want to be policed by their own people, or even un-policed, why not just let that happen?

moda0306 wrote: And if they're going to scowl, because they're looking for REAL crime happening (I think of the assassin-looking guy with a SMG in front of the white house the time that I went to it), that is just fine, but that is a VERY different role than the one police have with the public 95% of the time, where they are bringing the sternness of life-or-death criminal situations to everyday interactions with people who didn't have seatbelts on.

They don't get it both ways.  They don't get to pull me over for having a tail-light out, but act like I'm inconveniencing them because there's a rapist on the loose and I'm hindering their investigation.

I am trying SO hard not to just launch into an ad hominem attack on moda. The above precisely captures some fairly stunning ignorance in my view. First of all, let's start with the second amendment. If we get rid of it and can remove 99.5% of the existing guns from the U.S; fine, all is well and this statement isn't as absurdly idiotic as it appears to me. So perhaps moda just forgot to state an assumption he is making. As for me, I'm going to assume the current state of gun laws and the second amendment exists as my working *facts.*

Ever watch a cop approach a vehicle before? And if you are older than 30, have you noticed how it has changed over the years? Ever notice the conditions on which they come up on the left or the right side of the car? Trying paying attention and you might learn something moda.

Now perhaps there is this contest amongst all cops on developing the coolest way to pull a car over? Maybe they get bonuses for coming up with new ways to do it? Maybe there is a fantasy cop league where you can pick different cops and techniques and if your cop comes up with the coolest method you win? I'm not sure what do you guys think? Could we start a web-based fantasy cop league and make some money on it?

Oh wait, let's come back to reality...cops get killed pulling people over for traffic violations.

moda, I'm curious. If I plow into you some evening going 40 miles an hour with your tail lights out, is that cool? Come to think of it, who the crap mandated tail lights? A totally idiotic law in my view. I'm pretty sure it should have expired by now. Personally, I'm hoping to have remembered to turn my dash camera on because I'm calling my lawyer. I'm pretty sure there's some money in this for me.

PointedStick,

I think the reasons why cops act the way they do has more to do with danger and how they are trained than race. Unlike people who don't do things that routinely involve the possibility of death, they are pretty serious about learning from events that led someone to their death. If cops are getting the FBI data as part of their training then it would follow if there are systematic cop vs. African-American negative encounters. Black cops out of uniform not feeling as safe as in uniform with other cops should pretty much tell you anything you need to know on this topic. The fact they feel safer in uniform tells you how humans "sort" danger. Black guy in uniform, safe. Black guy in "street gear", possible danger..."shields up."

As 99% of the planet would react in these situations, me or you? I chose me.

So back to what I keep posting, unless you do something involving the daily possibility of death, you simply have no right to judge. As for me, whenever an officer approaches me I am nothing but courteous, smiling, and am slow and deliberate in any physical movements. So let's imagine the anti-me...whose side is Darwin on? In my view, there is man made law and natural law. Natural law wins just about every time in life threatening events. I do respect and admire cops for what they do, but one never knows if they have a scared or really pissed off cop on their hands.

We can bitch and rail about the above all day long, but again, Darwin/natural law is usually going to exert himself/itself in these situations...it simply "is." In every case, I'm going with Darwin. And if I have a really pissed off cop on my hands, I'm not changing a thing until he/she is gone.

P.S. I taught all my kids how to drive using something very similar to the above. Case study; you clearly have the right of way and you see a semi truck approaching at 40 miles an hour coming up to a corner, what do you do? Man made law, proceed as you clearly have the right of way. Natural law, begin to slow down and ensure you can come to a full stop. Never mess with physics (or ballistics) they just don't care what the man made law is.

PS - I think you have nailed it.

The NYPD absolutely does know what goes on in Chinatown, and it's clearly not high on their priority list. Every once in a while you see a push in the NY Times to clean up the bootlegging because it annoys the shops that sell designer handbags for truckloads of money, the police go in and make some arrests, and then things go back to usual.

This would be mystifying given the NYPD's zero tolerance policy for petty crimes, but the key is that they are focusing on petty crimes that are linked to violent crime.  This link doesn't appear to be present in Chinatown.  Take a look at these crime stats:

http://www.areavibes.com/new+york-ny/chinatown/crime/

and compare to Eric Garner's neighborhood, which has a relatively high crime rate for Staten Island and where there is indeed a link:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/mino ... ghborhood/

There are always lots of debates about the root causes of high crime rates, but the contrast between these two neighborhoods certainly supports the idea that the community's culture has a lot to do with it.

Kbg wrote:

moda0306 wrote: And if they're going to scowl, because they're looking for REAL crime happening (I think of the assassin-looking guy with a SMG in front of the white house the time that I went to it), that is just fine, but that is a VERY different role than the one police have with the public 95% of the time, where they are bringing the sternness of life-or-death criminal situations to everyday interactions with people who didn't have seatbelts on.

They don't get it both ways.  They don't get to pull me over for having a tail-light out, but act like I'm inconveniencing them because there's a rapist on the loose and I'm hindering their investigation.

I am trying SO hard not to just launch into an ad hominem attack on moda. The above precisely captures some fairly stunning ignorance in my view. First of all, let's start with the second amendment. If we get rid of it and can remove 99.5% of the existing guns from the U.S; fine, all is well and this statement isn't as absurdly idiotic as it appears to me. So perhaps moda just forgot to state an assumption he is making. As for me, I'm going to assume the current state of gun laws and the second amendment exists as my working *facts.*

Ever watch a cop approach a vehicle before? And if you are older than 30, have you noticed how it has changed over the years? Ever notice the conditions on which they come up on the left or the right side of the car? Trying paying attention and you might learn something moda.

Now perhaps there is this contest amongst all cops on developing the coolest way to pull a car over? Maybe they get bonuses for coming up with new ways to do it? Maybe there is a fantasy cop league where you can pick different cops and techniques and if your cop comes up with the coolest method you win? I'm not sure what do you guys think? Could we start a web-based fantasy cop league and make some money on it?

Oh wait, let's come back to reality...cops get killed pulling people over for traffic violations.

moda, I'm curious. If I plow into you some evening going 40 miles an hour with your tail lights out, is that cool? Come to think of it, who the crap mandated tail lights? A totally idiotic law in my view. I'm pretty sure it should have expired by now. Personally, I'm hoping to have remembered to turn my dash camera on because I'm calling my lawyer. I'm pretty sure there's some money in this for me.

Most of your post goes in to some sarcastic quasi-straw-men that I'm not really sure how to respond to. 

I'm for laws on tail-lights due to their extremely important function in highway safety... but the enforcement mechanism of the law that deals mostly with these sorts of violations should act more like a polite park ranger and less like you're a suspected murderer.

I'm for cameras used by both police, suspects, and bystanders whenever possible... I'm not sure where your sarcasm comes from on such an important tool to avoiding he-said-she-said dilemmas.

If you want to make a specific argument as to how police should conduct themselves in such a serious manner while enforcing traffic laws and/or victimless-crime laws, please feel free to make it.  No need to go ad hominem (which I appreciate you avoiding), but sometimes sarcasm without clarifying your ultmate point makes it hard for me to see where I was being so off-base.


And keep in mind, most of my problem with the non-murderous police that are still "dicks," IMO, is all the excuse-making and structural support they give to violent police behavior.  It creates a system of protecting crappy behavior that I resent.  The "dickish" attitude (and near-fraudulent display of authority towards those that they do NOT have authority over) towards window-tint violaters and non-seatbelt wearers just makes the whole thing that much more disgusting, IMO.

I speak from personal experience of having one of my "friends" (who is actually probably a friendly-enough cop usually) defend disgusting behavior, and all his cop buddies using all sorts of ad hominems, straw men, red herrings, and circular arguments to support their disgusting assertions of what is appropriate behavior.  No LEO came to defense of any point I was making, but their arguments back to me were filled with garbage logic and wreaked of the same thuggery we hate from other classes of society.

Moda
Just as an FYI, the majority of line of duty murder of police officers occur during so called "routine traffic stops." Traffic stops are widely seen as one of the most dangerous duties they perform because you have no idea who you are dealing with. Is it some little old lady who just forgot to signal before turning, or is it some creep who just stuck up the 7-Eleven 3 blocks back and they haven't had a chance to put out the radio alert yet? Cops are very cognizant of this and it understandably effects they way they handle this part of their job.

Kbg wrote:

moda0306 wrote: And if they're going to scowl, because they're looking for REAL crime happening (I think of the assassin-looking guy with a SMG in front of the white house the time that I went to it), that is just fine, but that is a VERY different role than the one police have with the public 95% of the time, where they are bringing the sternness of life-or-death criminal situations to everyday interactions with people who didn't have seatbelts on.

They don't get it both ways.  They don't get to pull me over for having a tail-light out, but act like I'm inconveniencing them because there's a rapist on the loose and I'm hindering their investigation.

I am trying SO hard not to just launch into an ad hominem attack on moda. The above precisely captures some fairly stunning ignorance in my view. First of all, let's start with the second amendment. If we get rid of it and can remove 99.5% of the existing guns from the U.S; fine, all is well and this statement isn't as absurdly idiotic as it appears to me. So perhaps moda just forgot to state an assumption he is making. As for me, I'm going to assume the current state of gun laws and the second amendment exists as my working *facts.*

Ever watch a cop approach a vehicle before? And if you are older than 30, have you noticed how it has changed over the years? Ever notice the conditions on which they come up on the left or the right side of the car? Trying paying attention and you might learn something moda.

Now perhaps there is this contest amongst all cops on developing the coolest way to pull a car over? Maybe they get bonuses for coming up with new ways to do it? Maybe there is a fantasy cop league where you can pick different cops and techniques and if your cop comes up with the coolest method you win? I'm not sure what do you guys think? Could we start a web-based fantasy cop league and make some money on it?

Oh wait, let's come back to reality...cops get killed pulling people over for traffic violations.

moda, I'm curious. If I plow into you some evening going 40 miles an hour with your tail lights out, is that cool? Come to think of it, who the crap mandated tail lights? A totally idiotic law in my view. I'm pretty sure it should have expired by now. Personally, I'm hoping to have remembered to turn my dash camera on because I'm calling my lawyer. I'm pretty sure there's some money in this for me.

KBG, he obviously has "issues".

Reub wrote: KBG, he obviously has "issues".

You are so civil, Reub.

Could I enroll in your civility class?

Please?

Reub wrote:

Kbg wrote:

moda0306 wrote: And if they're going to scowl, because they're looking for REAL crime happening (I think of the assassin-looking guy with a SMG in front of the white house the time that I went to it), that is just fine, but that is a VERY different role than the one police have with the public 95% of the time, where they are bringing the sternness of life-or-death criminal situations to everyday interactions with people who didn't have seatbelts on.

They don't get it both ways.  They don't get to pull me over for having a tail-light out, but act like I'm inconveniencing them because there's a rapist on the loose and I'm hindering their investigation.

I am trying SO hard not to just launch into an ad hominem attack on moda. The above precisely captures some fairly stunning ignorance in my view. First of all, let's start with the second amendment. If we get rid of it and can remove 99.5% of the existing guns from the U.S; fine, all is well and this statement isn't as absurdly idiotic as it appears to me. So perhaps moda just forgot to state an assumption he is making. As for me, I'm going to assume the current state of gun laws and the second amendment exists as my working *facts.*

Ever watch a cop approach a vehicle before? And if you are older than 30, have you noticed how it has changed over the years? Ever notice the conditions on which they come up on the left or the right side of the car? Trying paying attention and you might learn something moda.

Now perhaps there is this contest amongst all cops on developing the coolest way to pull a car over? Maybe they get bonuses for coming up with new ways to do it? Maybe there is a fantasy cop league where you can pick different cops and techniques and if your cop comes up with the coolest method you win? I'm not sure what do you guys think? Could we start a web-based fantasy cop league and make some money on it?

Oh wait, let's come back to reality...cops get killed pulling people over for traffic violations.

moda, I'm curious. If I plow into you some evening going 40 miles an hour with your tail lights out, is that cool? Come to think of it, who the crap mandated tail lights? A totally idiotic law in my view. I'm pretty sure it should have expired by now. Personally, I'm hoping to have remembered to turn my dash camera on because I'm calling my lawyer. I'm pretty sure there's some money in this for me.

KBG, he obviously has "issues".

Please elaborate if you can use reasoned arguments...

LC475 wrote:

Reub wrote: KBG, he obviously has "issues".

You are so civil, Reub.

Could I enroll in your civility class?

Please?

You are certainly welcome to my civility classes any time. However if the guy with the "issues" shows up I'll probably have to call the cops.

Reub wrote: You are certainly welcome to my civility classes any time. However if the guy with the "issues" shows up I'll probably have to call the cops.

Ok, getting a little lighter in here. That was funny.

moda, I think my points are quite evident. But to be specific, the #1 rule of acting in potentially life threatening situations (as in human violence situations) is to dominate and control the situation to the greatest degree possible. Don't assume the public demeanor is the private demeanor. Yeah and personally, I don't mind criminals being intimidated by cops at all so long as it remains within the bounds of the law. Personally I've never ran into a "dick cop." I've been pulled over by several who were game face on and I wouldn't exactly describe as cuddly. One small anecdote, I was pulled over by a cop who I had attended church with for years. He gave me a ticket for speeding, was all business - no smiles, and told me he felt bad on Sunday giving me the ticket.

Do I think cops should be dicks to use your words, no. Do cops know that they need community support, yes. Are all cops perfect, no. Are there criminal cops, yes. Are the vast majority of cops, good people who actually became police officers to serve and protect, also yes. Do I want cuddly cops? Only the fat old ones who are ready to retire, looks like my grandpa and do elementary school visits. For the rest, I want them to enforce the law and dominate criminals legally.

So back to my recurrent theme...unless you live this world, you have no right to judge. (You do have a right to both professional behavior and legal law enforcement practices.) So just exactly when should a cop relax his vigilance when on duty? My guess is that one of the main lessons learned from most violent police deaths is that at least 50% (probably more like 90%) of them occurred when the guy/gal dropped their vigilance.

I'll make a you a deal though, if you can get the level of criminal gun-related violence down to something in the U.S. approaching other major developed countries I'll work on getting U.S. cops batons and pointed caps.

Pointedstick wrote: Another alternative might be to allow them to live separately: anti-anti-segregation, perhaps. Let them live in their own enclaves, and let them be policed by members of their own communities. And then wash your hands. But that's too mean. We're far too advanced and progressive a society to consider something so barbaric as leaving people alone to their own devices and requiring that they own the consequences of their decisions.

Heh, have you visited any Native American reservations lately?  'nuff said.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Another alternative might be to allow them to live separately: anti-anti-segregation, perhaps. Let them live in their own enclaves, and let them be policed by members of their own communities. And then wash your hands. But that's too mean. We're far too advanced and progressive a society to consider something so barbaric as leaving people alone to their own devices and requiring that they own the consequences of their decisions.

Heh, have you visited any Native American reservations lately?  'nuff said.

Are there any reservations that are not government subsidized like all of the failed "projects"?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Are there any reservations that are not government subsidized like all of the failed "projects"?

There's plenty reservations that are self-sustaining now (from casinos and fracking) so you can't use the tired old Republican "its the government's fault" line.  Honestly, if we sent all the fatherless black men to an island....  well it'll turn into Plissken's Manhattan.  They won't shape up.  They'll just attack each other instead of The White Man Be Oppressing Me meme.  That is certainly one valid way to solve the "problem" but it's definitely anti-Progressive.  We can't even round up illegal-undocumented-alien immigrants for deportation, so I won't hold my breath.

Sadly, the lowest life expectancy in the entire country is right there on the reservations with heart-breaking poverty in South Dakota.  It's absurd for that to exist in the USA.

Kbg wrote:

Reub wrote: You are certainly welcome to my civility classes any time. However if the guy with the "issues" shows up I'll probably have to call the cops.

Ok, getting a little lighter in here. That was funny.

moda, I think my points are quite evident. But to be specific, the #1 rule of acting in potentially life threatening situations (as in human violence situations) is to dominate and control the situation to the greatest degree possible. Don't assume the public demeanor is the private demeanor. Yeah and personally, I don't mind criminals being intimidated by cops at all so long as it remains within the bounds of the law. Personally I've never ran into a "dick cop." I've been pulled over by several who were game face on and I wouldn't exactly describe as cuddly. One small anecdote, I was pulled over by a cop who I had attended church with for years. He gave me a ticket for speeding, was all business - no smiles, and told me he felt bad on Sunday giving me the ticket.

Do I think cops should be dicks to use your words, no. Do cops know that they need community support, yes. Are all cops perfect, no. Are there criminal cops, yes. Are the vast majority of cops, good people who actually became police officers to serve and protect, also yes. Do I want cuddly cops? Only the fat old ones who are ready to retire, looks like my grandpa and do elementary school visits. For the rest, I want them to enforce the law and dominate criminals legally.

So back to my recurrent theme...unless you live this world, you have no right to judge. (You do have a right to both professional behavior and legal law enforcement practices.) So just exactly when should a cop relax his vigilance when on duty? My guess is that one of the main lessons learned from most violent police deaths is that at least 50% (probably more like 90%) of them occurred when the guy/gal dropped their vigilance.

I'll make a you a deal though, if you can get the level of criminal gun-related violence down to something in the U.S. approaching other major developed countries I'll work on getting U.S. cops batons and pointed caps.

Your points are loosely evident, but while I'm good at snark sometimes too , when it comes to subjects that focus on morality, usually I have to ask my debate-buddies to dispense with dancing around exactly what their logic is and drill down to exactly the premises they believe are true and the natural logic that follows from those supposedly true premises.  I've found very few people who have a pro-law-and-order, anti-protesting police brutality stance to use logic VERY poorly.  So I'm trying to drill down so I can determine what your assertions really are.

But to what seems to be your first statement that actually seems like a debatable underlying premise dictating code of conduct:

unless you live this world, you have no right to judge.

Sorry, but one can very quickly see the logical error in this... Why don't  have a right to judge?  If I don't, why do I get to judge "criminals," both real and drug dealers and seat-belt non-wearers?  This is a ridiculous statement that I hear from LEO's and non-LEO's alike, and it's essentially a tool to shut down rational debate (since so few of them can actually rationally defend their authority, much less their illegal abuse of it, with true rational, logical arguments).

If you TRULY believe this, please make your case for what kind of "worlds" we aren't allowed to judge.  We aren't some ancient society where you essentially knew what your job was going to be when you were 5 years old.  Police CHOOSE the risks/rewards of their career.  They rest their moral authority upon this thing called "The Rule of Law," but when asked to abide by the law, they talk about how hard their job is and defend their buddies who break it, if not break it themselves.

My guess is that one of the main lessons learned from most violent police deaths is that at least 50% (probably more like 90%) of them occurred when the guy/gal dropped their vigilance.

And how many NON-police deaths/abuse result from police being overly (as you say) "vigilent?"  I don't mind a cop avoiding risk.  If you don't want to take risks, don't pull me over for not having a seatbelt on.  If they don't want to take unnecessary risks, stop with the no-knock raids that leave home-owners thinking they're killing home-invaders.  The best way to avoid violence is to AVOID IT.  Not try to try to bug people incessantly for victimless crimes that you will either fine or kidnap them for having committed only to expect that you be "respected" and never treated with similar violent intentions.

Police work is hard.  I don't envy them.  Most of them if put in the right situation would act as bravely as they imagine themselves being.  However, if they are resting their authority to enact violence/force upon people on the Rule of Law, then they better f*king well respect it themselves to an almost sickening degree.  They don't, far too often.  It's not a switch they get to turn on and off at will.  Yet they attempt to do so to help either themselves or their buddies get off the hook for wrong-doing.  I judge them for this.  They don't get a pass.  Criminals don't either, but I've had far more forceful interactions visited upon me by police than criminals.  But 99% of people agree with that (even though Reub would paint anyone who disagrees with him as a Cop-Hater).  This is about how much actually hold up the underlying basis of the moral authority of the police (the Rule of Law) as something that should be RESPECTED, vs something that is there just for convenience when we (ie, the cops and their beneficiaries) need it.

Over the holidays, a federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a ruling in the lawsuit brought by the family of Eurie Stamps, a 68-year-old man shot and killed by a Framingham, Mass., SWAT team during a drug raid in 2011. The ruling actually allows the lawsuit to go forward, but only in a limited capacity. The family will only be permitted to sue the officer who shot Stamps, and only for compensatory damages. The family’s bid for punitive damages and its claims against the city were dismissed. In fact, despite the fact that Stamps was not suspected of any crime, that he was fully compliant with the police when they stormed his house with guns, that the raid on his home itself was unnecessary, and that the judge concedes that Stamps did absolutely nothing to facilitate his own killing, the family has already lost on eight of their 10 claims before the case will even get to a jury. (Though that could still change, as both sides could appeal.)

Read the rest here...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... andfather/

Ad Orientem wrote:

Over the holidays, a federal district judge in Massachusetts issued a ruling in the lawsuit brought by the family of Eurie Stamps, a 68-year-old man shot and killed by a Framingham, Mass., SWAT team during a drug raid in 2011. The ruling actually allows the lawsuit to go forward, but only in a limited capacity. The family will only be permitted to sue the officer who shot Stamps, and only for compensatory damages. The family’s bid for punitive damages and its claims against the city were dismissed. In fact, despite the fact that Stamps was not suspected of any crime, that he was fully compliant with the police when they stormed his house with guns, that the raid on his home itself was unnecessary, and that the judge concedes that Stamps did absolutely nothing to facilitate his own killing, the family has already lost on eight of their 10 claims before the case will even get to a jury. (Though that could still change, as both sides could appeal.)

Read the rest here...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... andfather/

Quit being a "cop-hater."

How about a thread "When the accountants are the criminals'? Any objections?

Reub wrote: How about a thread "When the accountants are the criminals'? Any objections?

Nah... I'd love to see you put that together!  With rational arguments supporting your claims, of course.

Reub wrote: How about a thread "When the accountants are the criminals'? Any objections?

OK, sure!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Se ... nistration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Reub wrote: How about a thread "When the accountants are the criminals'? Any objections?

OK, sure!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Se ... nistration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

And of course Enron! 

Actually, now that I think about it, accountants are downright evil. 

And who says reality is not described by Scripture?  .  John 3:20 - "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed."  Just quoting some of Jesus' Law to go along with the accounting theme (for those who don't like to hear the Gospel).

And now back to the "cops are criminals" for some more reality.  Carry on.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:John 3:20 - "For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed."

So could that explain why some in the NYPD don't like the criticism?