I know many Americans have a tendency to put cops on a pedestal, politicians and media outlets talk about how "dangerous" policing is and how they have to do a tough job under constant threat of violence while completely ignoring that part of the threat of violence comes because of police misbehaviour. It's also not a very dangerous job. Statistically, being a gardener is more dangerous than being a cop. You don't see gardeners stabbing random black shrubs with shovels and quoting the dangers of their profession to justify it do you?

Most of the problem of out-of-control policing is because they're held up as holy warriors, haloed in glittering samite, when they're just people, and many of them are BAD people.

The whole hero cop myth just needs to die, but it won't because Americans, by and large, are cowards. Afraid of the shadows, afraid of black men, afraid of foreigners, muslims, anything or anybody "different". You think you NEED cops to be tough, rugged heroes to save you from the things that go bump in the night. You NEED cops to be brutal and without remorse, killing at the slightest provocation because they're "just doing their jobs". Otherwise every street corner would have a mugger ready to rob you blind.

Truth is, the vast majority of Americans have been the victim of a crime. They probably didn't even know it, and you can be sure the cops never investigated. Wage theft in America amounts to far more than all other criminal activity combined. It's intentional and ongoing. Until the Walton family is in chains the cops will never truly be in your corner. They are a tool of people like the Waltons. Their job is not to protect you, it's to protect the status quo. If protecting you helps maintain that status quo, then that's what they'll do. If not.... well, ask Willie McCoy about that.

As usual, you're absolutely wrong on all counts.

Manafort was convicted of repeatedly committing felonious frauds with the express purpose of hiding his massive financial ties to Russia and hide the fact that he is a foreign agent working for them and has been for years if not decades.

Paying out of your pocket to women to not say anything in order to help your campaign for president, which Trump did repeatedly (according to his personal lawyer who has released tapes of them discussing it) without disclosing it as a campaign contribution is absolutely a crime, as is making a personal contribution in those amounts.

Lying about it can also be a crime, which is part of why he cannot testify. He knows he'll also be asked about them and all the other women he's screwed and paid, and he doesn't know what they can prove, so has no idea which lie to tell. He also cannot testify about his finances without admitting many more felonious frauds. No blue dress needed when you're talking about an admitted criminal fraud and consummate liar like Trump, and btw, making a blue dress dirty wasn't a crime either....hiding it and lying about it under oath was....and Trump lies 3 times per sentence. He will never survive any interview under oath....he just isn't capable of honesty.

These are high crimes, felonies, not even misdemeanors. If Clinton had 1/10 the ties to Russia you would call her a Putin stooge and be calling for her head, and you know it. If her administration had 1/10 the convictions you would be frothing at the mouth for impeachment and be irate there was any obstruction to the special council or delay in getting her testimony, and claiming the convictions were absolute proof of her guilt. The smoking gun will be found, huh.....now that the multiple decades of investigations are over and she's been cleared of any crimes, and there's no accusations of actual criminal activity forthcoming (if you say pizzagate I'm going to assume you're actually mentally deficient and stop talking to you)...NOW the smoking gun will be found. *facepalm

If there's a log of smolder and smoke on the Clintons, there's a blast furnace on Trump. His entire upper echelon is either convicted of high crimes against the state, fired, both, or at odds with him for unpresidential actions and for trying to politicize the justice system like a despot. So much for his "I have the best people" lie, eh?

You are so blatantly hypocritical it would be funny, if only there weren't tens of thousands of you willing to say any kind of ignorant nonsense if you think it distracts from the overtly and undeniably criminal administration you support. That's pretty damn unpatriotic of y'all.

You know that's nearly 1/4 of what we've paid for Trump's golf outtings so far....largely paid directly to him since he charges the secret service to stay at his properties that he won't divest himself from, and even to use his golf carts on the greens ($150000 so far for carts alone).
You would do yourself a service to not complain about wasting money on investigating treasonous criminal activities as long as you're on team Trump, he spends like a drunken sailor on leave that just won the lottery. Just look at deficit numbers before and after his tax plan, then try to pretend he's somehow fiscally sane.

For a comparison, the GAO said the Clinton investigations cost $70-$80 million in the 90's (translating to over $135 million in 2018 dollars) and Republicans called them under funded.
History....ain't it a thing.

Disclaimer: I am actually in favour of legalising drugs, but to answer your question....

The state does have a responsibility to protect you, even from yourself. Hence things like warning labels, etc.

Also, for most countries, there is a social and economic cost associated with drugs. Even leaving aside criminal activity (i.e. committing crimes to feed a drug habit), there is a cost for healthcare, lost productivity (heavy drug users are often unemployed) and in social welfare.

This is the same argument applied to increasing controls on smoking (taxes, plain packaging etc).

However, my main problem with all this is that it just doesn't work. The "war on drugs" is a total failure. People continue to use drugs.

The entire thing is bias, not factual, or at best misleading because of intentional omission of fact. I can't say what fact is false if there's no fact. Opinion about perceived/alleged bias isn't factual.
A lie by omission is a lie. The whole thing is that kind of lie.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/feb/05/devin-nunes/nunes-memo-twists-james-comeys-words-steele-dossie/

The "unverified and salacious" (not wrong or debunked, mind you) part was personal accusations, you know, the golden showers with Russian hookers part, which was NOT used to get a warrant. He was clear that was not his opinion about the entire thing.

Yes, as I've told you at least twice now, I read it twice before commenting on it looking for anything in it and found nothing but biased whining. "Steele said bad things about Trump, so he's an untrustworthy liar" is hardly even an honest accusation, much less evidence he lied about anything, and farther from proof that this one piece in the puzzle of evidence against Trump's administration was key. One statement by one person taken out of context and misrepresented is not even an indication, much less proof that this was THE key bit of evidence, without which there was no case, but that's what this is all about. it was likely the most damning bit that tipped the scales from 'could just look bad' to 'this is something that needs investigation today'.
Recall, the continuing investigation already actually found criminal activity PROVEN, ADMITTED, AND CONVICTED.

As I've told you repeatedly, they (democrats , the fbi, and the DoD) tried to block it because 1) they wouldn't let the FBI screen it for secrets/classified information/pure lies and 2) republicans blocked (and continue to block) releasing the full story because it paints a completely different picture from the memo. Don't pretend to be so dumb you don't understand that.

Just keep saying bombshell, that will make it real...Jebus Christ.

I'm sure it is just the tip....of the ass fucking the Republicans are giving our democracy and system of checks and balances. What it's not is the tip of some insane conspiracy iceberg between liberals and top law enforcement.

Get your head out of your ass. No one is ever going after Obama or Clinton, as they committed no crimes, they've both been investigated with pure malice and bias for years and Republicans found nothing, this is just more nothing. It's almost funny you would even consider that, but it's actually sad you are that deluded you could keep thinking such nonsense after so many disappointments.

Really? A pure bias opinion piece from ' the hill' is your evidence? It was factless, logic free garbage that actually referenced Benghazi as one of Obama's prosecutable crimes, I'm dumber for having read it. You should feel shameful.

Clearly you don't recall that Obama's administration had zero convictions for misuse of power, zero indictments, how many has Trump's had already? 5? 6? 10? At least 4 high ranking members have been convicted or plead guilty already before year one or the first investigation is complete. Only Nixon's record was worse, and that only after he left office after Watergate.
Trump has by far the worst criminal conviction record for sitting administrations on record....by FAR!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/11/1619079/-Comparing-Presidential-Administrations-by-Arrests-and-Convictions-A-Warning-for-Trump-Appointees

Weather she win or looses still the video show the planning and admitting criminal activities.
Caught red handed in the cookie jar.

Yea look the other way.

For a moment, assume for the sake of argument that Assange is right. Next round of emails gets released, there's damning evidence of criminal actions or other behavior that are sufficient to arrest or at least force Hillary to drop out of the race. What would happen if that does come to pass?

Would the Democrat party be able to name Bernie as their candidate, since he got the second highest number of delegates? He has already endorsed Clinton and officially returned to being an Independent instead of a Democrat (or at least says that he would return to the Senate as an Independent). In light of that, would they pass the torch to Tim Kaine as Hillary's VP pick?

It's all pretty weird and unprecedented. I can only think of the Nixon resignation as setting any sort of example; but maybe there have been Governor candidates disqualified due to criminal activity in the middle of a race before?

I must say, it seems to me that it would almost be a blessing for the Democrat party if it *does* come true and they revert to Sanders for the nominee. I tend to think he'd easily beat Trump in the general election (although having endorsed Hillary could be damaging), and we'd all have the benefit of having someone with actually positive favorability ratings on the ballot...

Probably all wishful thinking on my part as a Sanders fan. But still interesting to contemplate.

In contrast to the implication from Myers, saying "I don't want congrats, I wan't toughness & vigilance" is not spreading bigotry or misinformation.

I'm in favour of firearm regulation. But there are plenty of countries with ready availability of AR15s to vetted people showing that it is the vetting process and the demeanor of the populace that are the major factors in criminal activity with legal firearms (illegal firearms used in criminal activity being a different thing). Focus should be on regulating firearms away from criminal and crazy people.

Playing devil's advocate...
Even where it's legal, it's usually not legal to smoke in public. It's certainly not responsible to smoke in public where kids are nearby...or others that might be drug tested. You could be doing them great harm. (As a legal smoker, I think about these things). Also, if you're caught and go to jail, you won't be at work, that is direct harm to the company and why most have clauses in the employment contract that criminal activity at any time is grounds for termination.
Sleeping with a 'lady of the evening' is incredibly risky behavior...and illegal. Many people are harmed by STDs, not just the one that contracts them first. Many are easily spread by normal social behaviors, so having someone in the office with, say, a massive herpes outbreak who wipes their face then shakes hands/shares drinks/sneezes/etc is a real safety/health issue. Also, your company is harmed if you're caught and go to jail because you won't be at work.

To the religion example, there's little to be done if people lie and cheat to get around the agreed on rules....but I'll go out on a limb and say that it's wrong, and they'll all burn in hell forever for bearing false witness. ;-)

What?! I thought I saw an interview with her father last night. Perhaps that was her lawyer.
It does seem that the school didn't take any of that into account, before or during this incident.
That does remove the 'call her mama' option pretty clearly and thoroughly, doesn't it.
Good question about the 'resource officer' (officer Slam) vs counselor. From all I've heard, the officer had no business being in the classroom at all. They are there ONLY for criminal activity, not to resolve classroom disputes or arguments. When he saw her sitting quietly, he should have told the teacher 'this isn't an incident for me, call the principle', not 'you're coming with me, or I'm gonna MAKE you come with me.'

All cops on duty need to wear video cameras with audio. Surveillance is an effective deterrent to criminal activity and that applies equally to corrupt cops.

If you're in a place where you are required to have legal identification and to produce it upon request by a peace officer and you refuse to do so and refuse to speak, I think it's justifiable for them to arrest you. I think it'd obviously be better to opt to cite the criminal (yes, if this is the law and he isn't abiding by it, he's a criminal), but they aren't able to cite you if you don't identify yourself.

Again, that's just if you're legally obligated to present your identification. If that's not the case and there's no suspicion of criminal activity, the cop went way overboard.

All the comments: TLDR. Does anyone know if providing your ID is required where this happened?

As usual, any sense of nuance is completely lost on you. Things are all black and white in your world, and blacks are all bad. I honestly can't understand how you survive with that mindset.

No, of course the video doesn't tell the whole story, they shut it off so we wouldn't know the whole story. That's the point. Duh.

All cops that beat up non-violent 'suspects' are bad. All cops that shoot unarmed, controlled civilians are bad. All cops that punt people in the head are bad. All cops that steal from victims are bad. All cops that lie or trick people are bad. All cops that hide their criminal activity, or that of other officers, are bad. If all cops do those things, then yes, all cops are bad. Are you now saying that's the case? You should know.

It's incredibly sad to me that so many like you have adopted the 'you're either (100%) with us or your (100%) against us' mindset. That's why anyone not goose stepping along with you must be a 'leftie', a dirty word in your mind. That's going to end up leaving you pretty lonely.

Um...so now you're whining about what being a cop entails?! Sorry, you actually have to do something for that paycheck. Jesus Christ!

Try thinking about what you whine about before writing it publicly...or you could just do what lantern53 does and snidely write a bunch of ridiculous whining BS, insults and lies over and over until everyone knows you're a troll.
Stop wasting our time. ;-)

@Jerykk
i cant make heads nor tails what you are trying to convey.
are you making an argument for harsher prisons?
or an assertion that if they were less harsh people would WANT to go to prison?
that recidivism is irrelevant so we should just execute prisoners?

i agree that poverty leads to desperation which can lead to criminal activity.there is plenty of statistics to back that up,though interestingly those numbers are dropping in regards to poverty=crime.

as for your deterrence argument.
yeah..no.the numbers obviously dont add up.
right now there are more american citizens incarcerated than the soviet gulags of the 80's.in fact,america incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other nation in the world.

americas prison population=2.4 million..and rising.

which leads me to my next point.
what is the purpose of prison?
well,it should be to remove those violent elements from society and for the offenders who are non-violent a way to pay a debt to the society they betrayed (fill in the offense here ____).

when their time has been served (paid) then they are free to rejoin society and reintegrate themselves back into society.

but what if that system of punishment strips you of all dignity and humanity?treats you like an abandoned dog at the local animal shelter?physically beaten and spiritually shattered,just HOW to you rejoin normal society?

what then?
do you blame the inmate who was thrown into a inhumane system?or maybe..juuuuust maybe..it may be the SYSTEM which is the blame.

let us look at some stats shall we?
the private prison industry is the 9th largest lobbiest in the country.who lobby for stricter sentencing,zero tolerance and mandatory jail time.a new trend in this area is now regarding teens AND pre-teens.they also make contracts with the local government to have a certain % occupancy.(meaning that even if those beds are not filled,the company STILL gets paid).

and lets not forget those kick backs to the local judges.already 25 judges this year got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

the idea that prison is a deterrence has been debunked.
there are over 5000 federal laws NOT including state and local.so at any given time,in any given day,YOU have perpetrated a federal crime.

the idea the prison is for rehabilitation is utter bullshit,another liberal feel-good "look at the good we are doing" trope.

prison is a business.
based on the mafia principle.
it is about making the poor a commodity and exploiting their lack of resources to fight back.
recidivism?
thats just repeat customers.american prisons care zippo about recidivism.

again i reference the milgram experiment.
treat people like animals and they will soon behave like animals.
treat them with humanity and dignity and the outcome is far more positive for a society as a whole..we ALL benefit.

but the private prisons dont want that..it means less profit for them.

the norden is doing it right and the results are impressive.