Doesn't sound like shes complaining as much as being some kind of witness to a pattern of behavior. I think she's just trying to do right by the women Louie wronged.

"Thank you! I have refrained from initiating this conversation for a reason. Not criminal. Not abuse of power. I guess I’m just compelled at this point to be a character witness of sorts for those brave enough to finally come forward."
— Laura Silverman (@LauraJSilverman) November 9, 2017

....and the supervisor demoted.
Nice to know this douchbag is no longer 'serving' the public (except maybe serving a whopper).
He should have been fired in '13 for sexual harassment and intimidation.
I sure hope he lost his pension too, he didn't earn it with his history of abuses of power.

You've got to be kidding, you know the judge isn't a DOJ employee, right?
You understand the concept that ignoring a judges direct legal orders is a crime no matter what your politics, right?
He wasn't convicted of the civil rights violations, (for pulling over Hispanic looking people and demanding they show their papers) but he was ordered to stop them, and he continued. He was convicted of criminal contempt.
It wasn't the DOJ, it was a federal judge he ignored and the constitution he violated after being ordered to stop it.
EDIT: But yeah...ignoring the constitution, judges, fairness, civility, the Geneva convention, and the rule of law certainly does make him the a America's best sheriff, doesn't it? I hope you and your family gets pulled over at gunpoint by black sheriffs at least once a week for life to check your papers, perhaps you'll eventually learn it's wrong.

If Obama abused that power as you suggest, why weren't there constantly DOJ investigations of elected Republicans and talking heads? It seems insane to even suggest that he reserved it for one evil sheriff.

Also, how do you explain all the charges and lost lawsuits from before Obama? Arpaio's legal troubles didn't suddenly start 8.5 years ago, you know. Was Bush's thumb on that scale against him too?

It bears noting that this happened in July, but no action whatsoever happened until she made the video public in late August.
It's pretty clear they thought this would go away like all the other abuses of power they swept under the rug.

Every aspect of the police's behavior in this video is wrong, but what is the most disturbing is how they tell the nurse if what they are doing is illegal the courts will rule on that later after they have what they want and use it against the suspect. This shows the insidious nature of the heinous low levels which the abuse of power operates on.

Oh Bob. If his tactics were used primarily against whites or if he was black or a democrat, you would say he's the worst monster in American history.
$140 million to pay for his illegal actions, with dozens of multi million dollar claims still in litigation....that's a great sheriff? 160 deaths in his jail that he gleefully calls a concentration camp, many if not most from undetermined causes....that's a great sheriff?
Yes, under Obama, the DOJ was interested in people abusing their power in ways that were clearly unconstitutional, like pulling people over because they looked Hispanic for no other reason than to check if they were legal citizens...a clear violation of civil rights....but yeah...fuck that constitution thing if it's in the way of fucking with beaners, huh? Wow.

Trump has set a precedent that you and yours will regret when power swings the other direction. You constantly seem to forget that it will.
There are far more democrats than republicans in America, so again, not sure where you get this idea besides wishful thinking....similar to wishing you could equate the radicals with the liberals. good luck with that.

Normally I 100% give the police every benefit of the doubt in these situations. I believe you are ignoring the important parts of this video though.

The kid didn't 'cop an attitude', refuse to comply, or 'flee' the scene. He was defensive from the start, and I don't think it's unjustified to be a bit put out to be interrupted from your work to be grilled about what your doing there and to prove who you are. The turning point you are missing is when the kid asks for supposed police officer to identify himself. The guy acting like an officer not only fails to do so, he immediately wants to handcuff the kid now all of a sudden. At this stage, the kid is supposed to back away. He has a guy in a uniform refusing to identify themselves, he shouldn't be expected to hang around.

It's not an offense or problem to 'refuse to comply' with someone that isn't a police officer.

It's not fleeing a scene when there is no police officer present, let alone an officer telling you that your being detained or under arrest.

The officer's refusal to identify himself should IMO mean that he isn't considered to be a police officer at all yet in how the public is expected to interact with him. That's a public safety requirement and the fact that the department PR video is lying and calling walking away from this interaction 'fleeing' is disgusting to me.

Oh, and for the record, if the officer DID identify himself, and then said the kid was being detained or under arrest then it all changes to me. Then the kid is 100% expected to comply, and the officer is allowed to use the force required to arrest and detain the kid. At the point if the arrest is an abuse of power or not is up the courts to decide. The important distinction is none of that actually happened, the PR meeting video acts as though the officer had identified himself and attempted to detain the kid. Fortunately the kid has video evidence showing that none of that actually happened. It is legitimately scary how easily and frequently an officer could do exactly this same stunt, and without it being on camera, he would get away with the whole thing.

Sorry, gotta disagree with you @enoch.
First, yes, America is guilty of interference in third world elections, but not so much in free elections.
Second, the level of interference in this election is unprecedented (EDIT: Including evidence the Russians tried to hack voting machines and virus many poll workers, and there's absolutely zero question which candidate they were trying to help).

Third, there is plenty of EVIDENCE his campaign colluded, they've admitted doing so after the election but before confirmation, and that at least he tried hard to hide that fact, and the fact that he has financial ties to them.
There is no publicly available PROOF that Trump himself colluded to steal the election....yet.

There is mounting proof that he has, since the election, at every turn, used the office for private financial gains from numerous foreign entities, which is totally illegal.

Does this translate to undeniable proof that he colluded to steal the election with a foreign enemy? Again, not yet, but the investigation is still in it's infancy, largely due to his interference in it and his stonewalling every legal question. It's far worse than just being a used car salesman abusing his power, it's the "leader of the free world" subverting the constitution for financial gains.

It was actually 17 agencies, and most of them were certain the evidence that Saddam had WMD's was suspect at best, and not credible....they said so, but were drowned out by the few agencies that went along with Bush's narrative...that has been shown fairly conclusively in the intervening years.

Again, I don't believe there was a joint statement about the gassing, that was again Trump's administration claiming certitude about Assad, not the intelligence community.

Not sure what you mean about Gadhafi, he did kill thousands, but again, I don't recall any joint public statement from the intelligence community.

In fact, I recall the joint statement being a first.

That doesn't mean they're right, just that your implication that they are so often wrong is a bit exaggerated and not factual as you wrote it....or at least as I read you.

Unfortunately, the evidence that would be proof is classified evidence...so we may NEVER see it without high level clearance of a bad leak. Not seeing it is no evidence at all that it doesn't exist, you should not be able to see it.

The term "deep state" is an Orwellian term meant to delegitimize ANYONE not in step with the current administration...just call them liberal holdovers and dismiss them...that's the idea...don't buy it. Most intelligence agents are non political....not all, but most.

CNN hasn't been pantsed IMO...they admitted what everyone knows, they are less about reporting important news than they are about ratings. That doesn't make their story wrong or fake, it makes it make sense that they ignore other actual news to talk incessantly about the one story that makes them money/ratings, even with no new information to share. Certainly that detracts from their value as a news source, but doesn't make them Breitbart willing to make up stories out of whole cloth and back them to the end.

Perhaps there's something there I'm missing since I won't watch a Breitbart story or give it a shred of credence, but not from what I've heard and seen elsewhere. I've not seen any evidence they made things up or lied, just that they are operating like a business rather than an independent news source.

45 votes and counting...

The problem you have is that you cannot look any further than the last post you disagreed with. There are dozens of videos showing good police officers doing their job, ie. helping the community. Negative commentary goes hand in hand with cops abusing their power or breaking the rules because they think they are above the law.

If you believe cops can do no wrong, you're as fucking moronic as a person who believes cops can do no right. Fortunately, both groups are an absolute minority around here.

@bcglorf
i was gonna respond,and most likely fail,in expressing what @radx nailed.

which,again,embarasses the fuck out of me,because @radx is german and english is his second language and he STILL beats me to a pulp when talking about these matters.

but i will add that we NEED dissenting voices.
we NEED people critical of power,the excesses of power and the abuse of power.

i totally agree with you Bc that we need balance,but for that balance to even EXIST,we have to have all voices heard.

how can you or i come to a well reasoned,and rationale conclusion if parts of the book are not even being allowed to be spoken out loud?
because it just happens to conflict with a current narrative the political elite are trying to shove down our throats.

the dynamic is NOT republican vs democrat,nor liberal vs conservative.

the dynamic is power vs powerlessness.

and let me be clear,because maybe some here are misunderstanding my support of hedges as somehow translating to supporting putin.

this is false.
i support hedges because of his stellar work.
putin is a thug who murders political enemies and challengers,and russia itself is dominated by oligarchs.russia is a fucking mess.

these are two separate issues,and to conflate them and apply that metric to my words is simply wrong.

Customer: They were able to resurrect my flesh, it's healed. And it's time for me to go home.

Cashier: Oh my god!

Customer: And I.. my.. e-they even told me my scales are turning gold as my father's were. My father was a piece of creation itself. He was the protector of god himself.

Cashier: Well that's good then.

Customer: That's the thing, people damn power. It's not evil it's how you choose to use it.

Cashier: Oh yeah most definitely. That's pretty much like how everything is.

Customer: But the dictation of true power is lost to this world. I'm returning home but I'm... going to come back. But I'm going to make it that no human is permitted to use power without sanction.

Cashier: Good!

Customer: You must give your soul to me.

Cashier: Oh my god!

Customer: I am the Sovereign of Power and I'm going to become what my father was before my birth: "Eternal Guardian Dragon of Time".

Cashier: Oh wow!

Customer: My father gave up much of his power when I was born. Because she.. (pause) h-he-his mate was Hecate (?), mother of angels. I was the only true born.. My brethren. Even Lucifer down in the pit for his fucking retardation, he was my brother.

Cashier: Oh my goodness!

Customer: I am not a fallen. I am a lost. I fell to Earth from my own folly- not following that bastard.

Cashier: (exasperated exhale) Wow.

Customer: Honestly look into my eyes. Do I seem mad to you?

Cashier: Not really.

Customer: Most humans denounce anything that is outside their realm (of...)

Cashier: (finishes Customer's sentence) Understanding.

Customer: But that is my dictation. I do not demand your soul as payment. It is moreso protection that if you abuse your power.. then your soul is (was?) going to be bound. You keep your soul within your flesh but your soul will be bound never to touch power again. That is the dictation of the blood contract. I give you my blood, you give me... a piece of your soul. You do not lose your soul. I am not the father, I have no rights to your soul. But I do have rights to claim how you use my power. And that is the only reason I bind your soul like that.

Cashier: Oh yeah forreal.. like.. that makes sense.

A wise approach.

Abuse of power makes my blood boil.

@bcglorf

hehe,thanks man.
i was not suggesting that my counter point was beyond rebuke,i was actually agreeing with you that to get the full story,all the information has to be on the table.

one thing i find interesting is the response to this protest and the bundy protest.

i think we approach situations from different perspectives.i am anti-authoritarian,and am always critical of power and abuse of power.

you tend to (in my opinion) approach these situations far more cautiously,and give authority the benefit of the doubt,whereas i do not...i hold them..and possibly unfairly..to a higher standard.

but i have always found you reasonable and intelligent.
and i always respect your input,even though we may disagree sometimes.

Thank goodness I'm a white male, so the least in the crosshairs of a Trump presidency I can be without also being a billionaire.
That said, I think you're mostly right...assuming he doesn't abuse the powers of the presidency...but it is a near certainty that he will abuse them.
Legally, he can do little, properly even less domestically, but since when does Trump follow the rules.
Let's just look at Texas, who made a clearly illegal law designed to close planned parenthood clinics, knowing full well it would be struck down, but it had the effect they wanted of closing those clinics in the interim, and they won't be re-opening. Expect Trump to use that, and other underhanded tactics to do things the president "can't" do, knowing that if his rule is struck down, it will already have done it's job. I think he'll be more damaging than you do both because the Republicans are going to back him AND because he'll just go around congress when they won't.
I realized yesterday that one plan they undoubtedly have is, as soon as he's president, his children will start illegally taking people's property by force to expand their empire, and Trump will pardon them for the crimes they commit in the thefts. I expect the Trumps to actually be multi billionaires by the end of his presidency (assuming the dollar is still worth anything), not just claim it. There's no way that family doesn't see this as a way to make money.

Without wishing to bang on about it - that happens a LOT on the internet. I think it's less about tone of voice and more about people being so offended by inequality that they are over aggressive in their pursuit of equality. They attack the argument before fully understanding it or allowing it to be fully expressed.

It's a really tight line to walk and I know this because I have in the past offended respectful, honest people in my crusade which was against abuse of power and authority. I hated being mistreated by people in authority so much that I became prejudiced against people in authority. The reason I behaved like that is because of how I was treated by authority figures in my formative years and the defence mechanisms I developed because of it. And in the same way, some women who are very poorly treated by men may develop barriers, prejudices and coping mechanisms in response.

(... and that's why I make a dozen edits to my posts. Sometimes I get carried away and detract entirely from what I was trying to achieve.)

I'm not saying that's the underlying cause of the misunderstanding here, but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be good reasons why someone just said something you thought was sexist. Problems arise, I think, when we deal in absolutes; this person is definitely chauvinist because he's ignorant and rude, this person is definitely a man-hater because she is ignorant and rude - both may be unfair to the other.