United States Defunding/Abolishing the Police and Radical Police Reform in the US

Random Username said:

They want to screw over the police the truckers will screw them over and not deliver goods to the cities and end up dragged out and have their skull caved in. They're not paid enough to deal with that shit.

Poll: 79 Percent of Truckers Say They Won't Deliver to Cities with Defunded Police Departments - JoshWho News

A majority of truckers are vowing to halt deliveries to cities that defund or disband their police departments, according to a recent poll. Seventy-nine percent of truck drivers said they felt their safety would be at risk if they had to deliver to a city with a disbanded police department...

www.joshwho.net

Click to expand...

I think even businesses that will still be in those areas, would have to pay employees a LOT of money, or at least put extra protection

Even then, you will get looters NOT customers

Oh and plexiglass is racist

Anyone catch the Mike Braune interview Tucker Calrson did tonight? Where he tried to justify defending BLM and over the qualified immunity bit?

Because that was interesting.

Zachowon said:

Nope you heard right.
"You still alive huh?" Minute later you hear a bang.

Click to expand...

Yup, definitely Rio...Sweet Jesus.

Zachowon said:

So even worse!!!!

Click to expand...

Yeah they just straight up butchered a kid.

edit-

Man...Look if you want to address police misconduct and corruption make public sector Unions a thing of the past.

The only people who should lose immunity are prosecutors and Judges..Since their incompetence tends to cause the most damage in terms of time wasted and resources burned over bullshit.

Also, like the case with the Making of a Murderer guy..where you have an obvious serial killer repeatedly getting off because the fucking DA was booty blasted he got outed as a methhead during the first trial.

Morons like that need to be charged with accessories to the times their negligence abets.

Street cops don't need to be sued, most can barely afford to live on their own for the first decade of service.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

The only people who should lose immunity are prosecutors and Judges..Since their incompetence tends to cause the most damage in terms of time wasted and resources burned over bullshit.

Click to expand...

You don't get qualified immunity. This is fair, because it's kinda complicated, and Tucker also doesn't understand what it is. But this is what it is without Tucker the closet socialist fucking it up:

Qualified immunity basically means that if the cops find a brand new way to violate your rights, they can't be punished. The idea is that if there isn't judicial precedent stating that X violates the constitution/law, the cop (or any other government agent) get's off the hook. This is read incredibly broadly, so that subtle differences in how people were beaten up matter. Then on top of that, it ends up that when a court gives qualified immunity, they don't have to establish a precedent, so instead obviously criminal behavior can be repeated and no one gets in trouble.

The results? Qualified immunity recently meant that a bunch of cops who straight up stole >$200,000 in cash (not civil asset forfeiture, straight up theft) could not be sued by the people they stole money from. Qualified immunity means that cops got away with purposefully locking an inmate in a cell overrun with sewage and shit. Qualified immunity means that the cops get away with blowing up someone's house with tear gas grenades, when the homeowner thought she was letting them in to just search the house.

If you care about originalism, you also should hate Qualified Immunity, as it is a judicial invention put on a judicial invention. It's all bullshit, with no actual law to justify it.

I think the concern is that removing it would make cops unwilling to do their jobs if they might be sued-say for restraining a suspect or whatever.

I’m by no means in favor of wanton police brutality or thuggery. Much less the rubber stamp it often receives from the government.

The fear is that removing it means-a cop can’t shoot a dangerous suspect charging at them with an axe-because they might be sued by a relative or something.

Obviously sensible police reform is desirable. But to the point it makes enforcing the law a loser’s bet.

Abhorsen said:

You don't get qualified immunity. This is fair, because it's kinda complicated, and Tucker also doesn't understand what it is. But this is what it is without Tucker the closet socialist fucking it up:

Click to expand...

No, you need be a little more attentive to what's being said and a little less dismissive. I was saying Judicial immunity is a problem and that qualified immunity isn't the cause of the issues these advocates are babbling about.

And I think Sotomayor is wrong in her criticism of it.

Qualified immunity doesn't encourage cops to murder, it encourages cops to remain ignorant, lazy and unqualified. That's a huge problem but you could address it by neutering their advocates and lobbyists..without putting the lot of them at risk of frivolous litigation.

Abhorsen said:

Qualified immunity basically means that if the cops find a brand new way to violate your rights, they can't be punished. The idea is that if there isn't judicial precedent stating that X violates the constitution/law, the cop (or any other government agent) get's off the hook. This is read incredibly broadly, so that subtle differences in how people were beaten up matter. Then on top of that, it ends up that when a court gives qualified immunity, they don't have to establish a precedent, so instead obviously criminal behavior can be repeated and no one gets in trouble.

Click to expand...

And courts have made dumb rulings like the reasoning the Judges gave in the case you cite below. I'm not disputing this, I'm arguing most of the wrongful convictions and other issues these idiots bleat about all day have more to do with the unconstitutional protection Judges and DA's enjoy.

Emmet Sullivan needs to spend the rest of his life in prison, preferably after having everything seized an example.

Abhorsen said:

The results? Qualified immunity recently meant that a bunch of cops who straight up stole >$200,000 in cash (not civil asset forfeiture, straight up theft) could not be sued by the people they stole money from. Qualified immunity means that cops got away with purposefully locking an inmate in a cell overrun with sewage and shit. Qualified immunity means that the cops get away with blowing up someone's house with tear gas grenades, when the homeowner thought she was letting them in to just search the house.

If you care about originalism, you also should hate Qualified Immunity, as it is a judicial invention put on a judicial invention. It's all bullshit, with no actual law to justify it.

Click to expand...

That can be easily remedied by the Judges who issue such rulings ending up homeless for issuing such rulings.

Lord Invictus said:

I think the concern is that removing it would make cops unwilling to do their jobs if they might be sued-say for restraining a suspect or whatever.

I’m by no means in favor of wanton police brutality or thuggery. Much less the rubber stamp it often receives from the government.

The fear is that removing it means-a cop can’t shoot a dangerous suspect charging at them with an axe-because they might be sued by a relative or something.

Obviously sensible police reform is desirable. But to the point it makes enforcing the law a loser’s bet.

Click to expand...

In places like Florida where frivolous lawsuits are so pervasive they're often treated as merely part of running a business in said state....Yeah....

There's also intimidation as well, you can target the family of the cop as well to a degree.

Lord Invictus said:

I think the concern is that removing it would make cops unwilling to do their jobs if they might be sued-say for restraining a suspect or whatever.

I’m by no means in favor of wanton police brutality or thuggery. Much less the rubber stamp it often receives from the government.

The fear is that removing it means-a cop can’t shoot a dangerous suspect charging at them with an axe-because they might be sued by a relative or something.

Obviously sensible police reform is desirable. But to the point it makes enforcing the law a loser’s bet.

Click to expand...

You do know that they already can, right? And cops don't have to pay for the defense, the city does. I'd be quite fine with some sort of legal defense for them to avoid stupid lawsuits, but Qualified Immunity is no solution.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

No, you need be a little more attentive to what's being said and a little less dismissive. I was saying Judicial immunity is a problem and that qualified immunity isn't the cause of the issues these advocates are babbling about.

And I think Sotomayor is wrong in her criticism of it.

Qualified immunity doesn't encourage cops to murder, it encourages cops to remain ignorant, lazy and unqualified. That's a huge problem but you could address it by neutering their advocates and lobbyists..without putting the lot of them at risk of frivolous litigation.

Click to expand...

No, qualified immunity is a fundamental problem with the police. In America, rights are secured through lawsuits. That's what defends me from police. And taking that away means that when the cops do violate rights, there is no way to receive justice. When cops steal $200,000, you sue them to get your money back. With QI, they get to keep the money.

These lawsuits aren't frivolous, and that's not what qualified immunity is about. If you want to write a law getting rid of actually frivolous lawsuits, that would be one thing. But relying on judicial activism (that's what qualified immunity is, btw) to protect bad cops is just stupid.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

And courts have made dumb rulings like the reasoning the Judges gave in the case you cite below. I'm not disputing this, I'm arguing most of the wrongful convictions and other issues these idiots bleat about all day have more to do with the unconstitutional protection Judges and DA's enjoy.

Emmet Sullivan needs to spend the rest of his life in prison, preferably after having everything seized an example.

Click to expand...

Those rulings a) have nothing to do with prosecutors, as this is a civil suit, and b) have judges making the legally correct decision if you accept qualified immunity. This is what qualified immunity means. Your solution doesn't work.

Sullivan also has nothing to do with this at all, and is totally off topic.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

That can be easily remedied by the Judges who issue such rulings ending up homeless for issuing such rulings.

Click to expand...

No, the judgement was totally correct according to qualified immunity. Because the cops hadn't blown up someone's house before, so there was no case law, so they couldn't be sued. If you want to stop this, get rid of QI. Otherwise, when your house is blown up slightly differently, don't bother suing for your house.

Meanwhile, judicial immunity is a simple reality of the court system, as it's impossible to prosecute without going through a judge.

Abhorsen said:

No, qualified immunity is a fundamental problem with the police. In America, rights are secured through lawsuits. That's what defends me from police. And taking that away means that when the cops do violate rights, there is no way to receive justice. When cops steal $200,000, you sue them to get your money back. With QI, they get to keep the money.

These lawsuits aren't frivolous, and that's not what qualified immunity is about. If you want to write a law getting rid of actually frivolous lawsuits, that would be one thing. But relying on judicial activism (that's what qualified immunity is, btw) to protect bad cops is just stupid.


Those rulings a) have nothing to do with prosecutors, as this is a civil suit, and b) have judges making the legally correct decision if you accept qualified immunity. This is what qualified immunity means. Your solution doesn't work.

Sullivan also has nothing to do with this at all, and is totally off topic.

No, the judgement was totally correct according to qualified immunity. Because the cops hadn't blown up someone's house before, so there was no case law, so they couldn't be sued. If you want to stop this, get rid of QI. Otherwise, when your house is blown up slightly differently, don't bother suing for your house.

Meanwhile, judicial immunity is a simple reality of the court system, as it's impossible to prosecute without going through a judge.

Click to expand...

Arguing things ae correct because they ate legal is fallcious. Many immoral things have been legal at various times. Perhaps that's not your argument but I thought I'd point it out.

Abhorsen said:

No, qualified immunity is a fundamental problem with the police. In America, rights are secured through lawsuits. That's what defends me from police. And taking that away means that when the cops do violate rights, there is no way to receive justice. When cops steal $200,000, you sue them to get your money back. With QI, they get to keep the money.

Click to expand...

And I'm arguing that a Judge who makes a ruling that dumb, is not fit to be a Judge and should face civil consequences.

Abhorsen said:

These lawsuits aren't frivolous, and that's not what qualified immunity is about. If you want to write a law getting rid of actually frivolous lawsuits, that would be one thing. But relying on judicial activism (that's what qualified immunity is, btw) to protect bad cops is just stupid.

Click to expand...

And I'm not disagreeing with that, I'm saying revoking qualified immunity isn't going to address the infrastructural problems. Only one aspect of it.

Abhorsen said:

Those rulings a) have nothing to do with prosecutors, as this is a civil suit, and

Click to expand...

You're missing my point again.

My point is, should you take the position BLM takes, prosecutors rail roading people to save face is one of the chief causes of all the ills they're talking about in the justice system. It's a larger threat than the street cops, because those are easier to replace.

Abhorsen said:

b) have judges making the legally correct decision if you accept qualified immunity. This is what qualified immunity means. Your solution doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Criminal misconduct and partisan negligence on part of a Judge or a DA is not a thing any kind of immunity can shield from.

Abhorsen said:

Sullivan also has nothing to do with this at all, and is totally off topic.

Click to expand...

No, it's entirely ontopic, from the perspective of the people we're all criticizing in this thread.

Don't be obtuse.

Abhorsen said:

No, the judgement was totally correct according to qualified immunity. Because the cops hadn't blown up someone's house before, so there was no case law, so they couldn't be sued. If you want to stop this, get rid of QI. Otherwise, when your house is blown up slightly differently, don't bother suing for your house.

Click to expand...

Cops haven't blown up peoples houses before, ever in the history of policing...Really...

Abhorsen said:

Meanwhile, judicial immunity is a simple reality of the court system, as it's impossible to prosecute without going through a judge.

Click to expand...

The lack of oversight and accountability of our upper legal system isn't relegated solely to the purview of beatcops.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

And I'm arguing that a Judge who makes a ruling that dumb, is not fit to be a Judge and should face civil consequences.

Click to expand...

They don't make the rule though. They are just obeying binding precedent. Meanwhile, how the hell do you plan on successfully trying judges for being partisan? Without using judges, and doing it in a fair way. If you leave it up to politicians, it won't work, as they'll just get rid of judges they disagree with. There is no solution to this, other than strong institutions.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

You're missing my point again.

My point is, should you take the position BLM takes, prosecutors rail roading people to save face is one of the chief causes of all the ills they're talking about in the justice system. It's a larger threat than the street cops, because those are easier to replace.

Click to expand...

DAs are much more accountable than cops, as they are elected. Prosecutors less so, but they are also less likely to do stupid political shit. It's by no means perfect, but much better than cops.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

Cops haven't blown up peoples houses before, ever in the history of policing...Really...

Click to expand...

No, they just hadn't been sued before, in that jurisdiction, for blowing up a house in that specific manner. There are tons of unique ways for them to blow up a house.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

No, it's entirely ontopic, from the perspective of the people we're all criticizing in this thread.

Don't be obtuse.

Click to expand...

The thread is about the George Floyd protests. He's not on topic, as he's not being protested by anything related to George Floyd. Also, without Sullivan, we wouldn't even know Flynn was innocent, so maybe don't be so quick to judge.

Lanmandragon said:

Arguing things ae correct because they ate legal is fallcious. Many immoral things have been legal at various times. Perhaps that's not your argument but I thought I'd point it out.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with this general point, and not exactly what I'm doing. I'm arguing that Qualified Immunity is the problem, but it is the law (or at least binding precedent). Trying to solve the real problems of qualified immunity by punishing judges for not following the law, but keeping qualified immunity as the law, is completely backwards.

Abhorsen said:

They don't make the rule though. They are just obeying binding precedent. Meanwhile, how the hell do you plan on successfully trying judges for being partisan? Without using judges, and doing it in a fair way. If you leave it up to politicians, it won't work, as they'll just get rid of judges they disagree with. There is no solution to this, other than strong institutions.

Click to expand...

I dunno, I'm not the fucking lunatics burning down cities in the name of criminal justice reform. I do think a treason charge should be concocted to fuck with Judges, prosecutors and Federal Agents who engage in activism while on the job though.

Abhorsen said:

DAs are much more accountable than cops, as they are elected. Prosecutors less so, but they are also less likely to do stupid political shit. It's by no means perfect, but much better than cops.

Click to expand...

Far less of them are held accountable than cops, though, which makes the problems worse.

Abhorsen said:

No, they just hadn't been sued before, in that jurisdiction, for blowing up a house in that specific manner. There are tons of unique ways for them to blow up a house.

Click to expand...

That in no way, makes the ruling any less preposterous irregardless of what side you're on and irregardless of what precedent came before it.

Abhorsen said:

The thread is about the George Floyd protests. He's not on topic, as he's not being protested by anything related to George Floyd. Also, without Sullivan, we wouldn't even know Flynn was innocent, so maybe don't be so quick to judge.

Click to expand...

And Emmet Sullivan is a pristine example of judicial misconduct that ought to be actionable, pursuant to the point I'm making. Your pedantry is boring.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

The CPS one?



Not just any lefty mayor either.

Damn

Click to expand...

The Seattle PD Chief also steps in as well. They fucked up

Lord Invictus said:

I think the concern is that removing it would make cops unwilling to do their jobs if they might be sued-say for restraining a suspect or whatever.

I’m by no means in favor of wanton police brutality or thuggery. Much less the rubber stamp it often receives from the government.

The fear is that removing it means-a cop can’t shoot a dangerous suspect charging at them with an axe-because they might be sued by a relative or something.

Obviously sensible police reform is desirable. But to the point it makes enforcing the law a loser’s bet.

Click to expand...

The people that defend police are generally at least in the south, attornies that specialize in defending cops. Since lawsuits for racial discrimination and wrongful killings hyappen most in the south

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

I dunno, I'm not the fucking lunatics burning down cities in the name of criminal justice reform. I do think a treason charge should be concocted to fuck with Judges, prosecutors and Federal Agents who engage in activism while on the job though.

Click to expand...

No. You don't even have a solution. You are like a gun grabber thinking that criminals will hand in their guns. That's what you are doing, making up a law with zero way to enforce it. Also, prosecutors for being political is stupid when the DA is literally a politician who is elected. Of course they are political.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

Far less of them are held accountable than cops, though, which makes the problems worse.

Click to expand...

You vastly underestimate how bad cops can be, and overestimate how many are held to account.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

That in no way, makes the ruling any less preposterous irregardless of what side you're on and irregardless of what precedent came before it.

Click to expand...

And that's exactly what qualified immunity is: really stupid results because they haven't been before a judge before. If you don't like this result, you don't like qualified immunity.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

And Emmet Sullivan is a pristine example of judicial misconduct that ought to be actionable, pursuant to the point I'm making. Your pedantry is boring.

Click to expand...

He's really not. He is the entire reason we know Flynn's prosecution was bullshit. If he wanted to, he could have just accepted a guilty plea, and Flynn would have been convicted, and he wouldn't be on the news.

Abhorsen said:

No. You don't even have a solution. You are like a gun grabber thinking that criminals will hand in their guns. That's what you are doing, making up a law with zero way to enforce it. Also, prosecutors for being political is stupid when the DA is literally a politician who is elected. Of course they are political.

Click to expand...

Naw, my solution is pretty efficient you just wanna fuck with the mooks on the street, whereas I'm looking at the top and the middle management type guys who exacerbate and enable the problem.

District attorneys are elected but their mandate is to still enforce the fucking law. Prosecutors in general don't do a good job of that.

Lawyers in general have categorically made society worse but that's another story.

Abhorsen said:

You vastly underestimate how bad cops can be, and overestimate how many are held to account.

Click to expand...

.

Naw dude most cops are functionally illiterate, half of them don't even make the weight requirements to be cops. In many counties you can't even be a cop of you have an IQ score above 95, because people with a modicum of smarts being cops is seen as dangerous.

I've debated this ad nauseum.. you wanna assume they're all malicious mass murderers.

meanwhile I'm saying they are what the average person who collects a government paycheck is outside of certain fields: below average and dumb.

And I'm saying if you wanna address police brutality you do so by making public sector Unions illegal and throwing anyone in jail for negligence who actively enables them.

And arguing from the BLM position- its a lot smarter to make prosecutors afraid again than it is to fuck with street cops.

Abhorsen said:

And that's exactly what qualified immunity is: really stupid results because they haven't been before a judge before. If you don't like this result, you don't like qualified immunity.

Click to expand...

I mean don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the ability to sue a certain beat cop who gave me shit 15 years ago. Include his wife in the lawsuit somehow and to abuse the shit out of discovery out of pure sadism.

But im also aware allowing criminals to jam the courts with vexatious lawsuits that bankrupt already bankrupt idiots who are too dumb to even shoot right half the time is probably going to result in either a; all decent cops fucking off and only the thugs remaining and B; prolly a lot more intimidation and retaliatory action by panicky cops and more of a drain on the tax payer.

Abhorsen said:

He's really not. He is the entire reason we know Flynn's prosecution was bullshit. If he wanted to, he could have just accepted a guilty plea, and Flynn would have been convicted, and he wouldn't be on the news.

Click to expand...

Naw instead he just made a mockery of court!

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

Naw, my solution is pretty efficient you just wanna fuck with the mooks on the street, whereas I'm looking at the top and the middle management type guys who exacerbate and enable the problem.

Click to expand...

No, that's your base idea, but you have articulated no plan to do that. Claiming you'll arrest politically biased judges is just like saying you'll outlaw racism: Not a plan, not viable, and not constitutional.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

And arguing from the BLM position- its a lot smarter to make prosecutors afraid again than it is to fuck with street cops.

Click to expand...

No, because prosecutors aren't the majority of the problem. Most of police brutality happens without a prosecutor ever becoming aware of it, and prosecutors also aren't usually the ones encouraging it. Cops interact with civilians much more frequently than prosecutors, and are the chief problem. The next problem are governments passing laws that over criminalize and protect bad cops. Then we get to prosecutors, of which the few good ones are usually political ones who purposefully choose not to overprosecute. You are wrong again in every sense.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

Naw instead he just made a mockery of court!

Click to expand...

After he was the reason we found out Flynn was railroaded.

Abhorsen said:

No, that's your base idea, but you have articulated no plan to do that. Claiming you'll arrest politically biased judges is just like saying you'll outlaw racism: Not a plan, not viable, and not constitutional.

Click to expand...

I've in fact articulated a plan, numerous times actually.

One of which , admittedly somewhat hyperbolic and shitposty was to create an American Krypteia, empower them to act extra judiciously to neutralize bad civic and Federal officers.

Granted an amendment or two would have to be rewritten in a convention but eh, that's closer than people feel comfortable admitting.

Abhorsen said:

No, because prosecutors aren't the majority of the problem. Most of police brutality happens without a prosecutor ever becoming aware of it, and prosecutors also aren't usually the ones encouraging it.

Click to expand...

Most wrongful imprisonment's are the result of malicious or incompetent prosecution. Wrongful imprisonment does far more damage to society than some rando cop shooting some rando asshole. Especially in cost over a lifetime

Abhorsen said:

Cops interact with civilians much more frequently than prosecutors, and are the chief problem. The next problem are governments passing laws that over criminalize and protect bad cops.

Click to expand...

Unions, police Unions, say it, I know it might be heresy to someone like you..but Police Unions are the cause of that through lobbying and public pressure.

Abhorsen said:

Then we get to prosecutors, of which the few good ones are usually political ones who purposefully choose not to overprosecute. You are wrong again in every sense.

Click to expand...

Hardly, recent events have proven I'm correct. Every single cop that's currently being railded roaded, is being rail roaded by a shitheel overzealous leftwing political hack with a law degree.

"Anyone who is in public service passed a certain level is inherently treasonous, as they would not enter public service if it wasn't to find an easy way to perpetuate their own existence" - Paraphrasing a Caudillo here.

Abhorsen said:

After he was the reason we found out Flynn was railroaded.

Click to expand...

"This guy is so incompetent, his incompetence exposed his criminal complicity in an attempt to frame someone! Thankgod for this retard!"

Naw.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

I've in fact articulated a plan, numerous times actually.

One of which , admittedly somewhat hyperbolic and shitposty was to create an American Krypteia, empower them to act extra judiciously to neutralize bad civic and Federal officers.

Granted an amendment or two would have to be rewritten in a convention but eh, that's closer than people feel comfortable admitting.

Click to expand...

... This plan doesn't work, because the American Krypteria would be political, and you'd be screwed again. Look, you still haven't articulated a plan for this idea of judging judges for being bad judges. Until you do, you don't have an actual idea, anymore than people shouting at cops to "just stop being racist" do. And my bet is that your 'solution', if you ever come up with one, will just make everything worse. Remember, if you want to solve political judges, you need an non-political and fair force to do so. That's simply not possible within the constitution. Though you don't seem to understand that America is built on letting people have differences of opinion, so that's what I expect here.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

Most wrongful imprisonment's are the result of malicious or incompetent prosecution. Wrongful imprisonment does far more damage to society than some rando cop shooting some rando asshole. Especially in cost over a lifetime

Click to expand...

If there was one wrongful imprisonment for every police brutality, sure. But police brutality is much more frequent.

Also, you effectively just made the argument that "better be carried by six than tried by 12", which is utterly backwards.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

Unions, police Unions, say it, I know it might be heresy to someone like you..but Police Unions are the cause of that through lobbying and public pressure.

Click to expand...

... You do know I hate police unions, right? Along with all public sector unions? I've repeatedly complained about them on this forum. I just recognize there are muliple problems, like qualified immunity, police unions, and others.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

Hardly, recent events have proven I'm correct. Every single cop that's currently being railded roaded, is being rail roaded by a shitheel overzealous leftwing political hack with a law degree.

"Anyone who is in public service passed a certain level is inherently treasonous, as they would not enter public service if it wasn't to find an easy way to perpetuate their own existence" - Paraphrasing a Caudillo here.

Click to expand...

Almost always, prosecutors aren't prosecuting cops but instead civilians, so I value what they do in respect to civilians much more.

The Immortal Watch Dog said:

"This guy is so incompetent, his incompetence exposed his criminal complicity in an attempt to frame someone! Thankgod for this retard!"

Naw.

Click to expand...

Again, not what happened. Did you even read the news there? Sullivan purposefully released the entire transcript to the public. Otherwise we'd never know. You don't do that by accident.