“This family”?
This isn’t one case, Bob. It’s department policy and has been for a long time.

Agreed, it SHOULD be a big payday for these families… unfortunately that’s at taxpayer, not the police’s pension fund’s, expense….but so far in the years of this practice if the victims got anything it doesn’t seem to have payed enough to get the local government to stop it, or enough to excuse blatant and rampant abusive harassment of law abiding citizens as standard policy, even a revenue generator.

How much is the daily harassment of your children, wife, co workers, family, friends, and business contacts at their work and in their homes late at night for years by dozens of aggressive armed men trespassing and peeping in windows and threatening arrest and continued harassment if they can’t come inside to “talk” at 3 am, all because they know you….without you ever being convicted of a crime….worth?….guaranteed none of the victims of this policy have been paid that much.

It is nice to know you at least say you don’t support DeSantis style policing…so I guess you don’t support his candidacy?

Also interesting you love to dismiss constant violent civil rights violations like this by just claiming the victims will get a huge settlement and that makes it ok (most don’t, police have immunity from all but the absolute worst illegal violations, they don’t even pay to repair the doors they destroy breaking in homes with no warrant or the pets they kill while trespassing and spying on citizens….not even for the innocent people they murder when breaking into their homes at 3 am, and when they are brought to account, they often fight cases for decades first, forcing the victims to sue them over and over and over and over....expensive lawsuits against city hall that most victims can't afford to start)….but when it’s a public health issue where they’re considering forcing you to not become a biological viral lab, stopping you from mutating new viruses to release in America, suddenly your rights to be dangerously idiotic and anti science are sacrosanct, no amount of money could make up for a little ouchie, fuck those other people you kill and disable.
Anti vaxers should not only be denied insurance, but also be forced to pay for treatment of their victims.

@Trancecoach....
I would like to respectfully tell you that you would be hard pressed to find even a single 'liberal', 'progressive', or 'lefty' that wants MORE government. I think you know that's a straw man argument (I know you know what those are). What the left wants is BETTER governing by the government we already have. That does not require it to grow, in fact most would say it should shrink (just not in the places you would like or expect). For instance, I bet most left leaning people would say we could cut the military budget by at least 1/2 (if we stop being the worlds police against their will). Then we could afford ALL the 'socialist' projects they have and still have a surplus.

As to how more laws would protect us against abuse...if those laws address abuse and require 1)independent investigation of possible abuse and 2)severe punishment for abuse and 3) removal of any immunity when the law has been broken it would do TONS.

Writing complaints about officers that break the law and/or display terribly improper behavior works. I know that enrages you, but it really does. True enough, as it stands it might be a full time job for some people, but once enough people do it and end enough officers careers, the other officers will likely either quit or start acting appropriately. They would be left with little choice.

@ChaosEngine I agree with you it wouldn't be nice to see smaller communities abused by state laws, but that's what the constitution is for, it protects individuals from government abuse, both state and federal.

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).

If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell

The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?

I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:

a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property

b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve

c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

Thanks man, same can be said about you, I also really appreciate your civility and open-mindedness. My experience so far is that it's easier to talk Ron Paul with liberals than with neocons lol

holy snapping ducks feet, what an abuse of the law (by the council).

Me too. But don't forget that the cops are not part of the elite class structure. They are pretty low on the totem pole and as such, if we focus on the police in issues like this, we make the divide and conquer strategy pay off even bigger for the upper class.

In reply to this comment by GenjiKilpatrick:
I have a problem with bureaucracies, the power elite and apologists that justify that abuse of power.

Law enforce is part of that.

In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
Genji, it sounds to me like you just have a problem with all cops in general.

I think personally... I would call myself pro-life if not for instances like rape and abuse... supporting a law that would punish a woman who already had to suffer a horrible crime... it's just inconcievable to me... and thats just a line i can't cross Doc... for the most part I agree with what your saying... But i still say this is a personal and family moral issue...

It's interesting what you say Volumptuous... give me a few years... i'm justn ot that cynical yet... but it's hard to argue it isn't one of their best rallying cries...

I will say again that I agree... this add represents the very lowest level of propoganda in a campaign... which is of course why it will appeal to so many.

Poking around the interwebs a bit, it seems they have mostly the same powers as police (maybe more with the lovely patriot act stuff). Mainly being that they can detainee and search vehicles if they have probable cause, which is of course one of those easily abusable caveats of law.

Anyways, it seems border patrol does have ability to detainee and search under probable cause, so had she wanted she could have detained this man and searched his vehicle. Of course he could probably turn around and attempt to sue saying the stop did not warrant probable cause. My guess is the lady had a pretty good idea he was a citizen, and had nothing and because of his attitude and camera he was putting in her face would be the sort to cause as much ruckus as possible, and thus concluded the easiest option was just to let the man go on his way rather than escalate things.

For his part I think there a probably better ways to protest unfair practices of a law enforcement division than being a complete douche to someone who is probably on the lowest rungs of the organization.