Summary: This post continues from yesterday’s review of the most common reasons given why we need not reform policing in America. Whatever you think of them, they speak for the great forces in America — the interests of the 1% and the apathy of middle America. Unless people speak loudly demanding reform, we’ll get only minor changes on the road to an even more militarized police. {1st of 2 posts today.}
How will Americans react to the revelations this year about the behavior of police in America? The police are the second most trusted American institution (behind the military), with confidence ratings in the mid-50%s since the survey began in 1993. But this varies strongly by race, with 59% of whites having strong confidence vs. 37% of blacks (average of 2011-2014 polls).
The police will not reform without a strong public pressure, which might not appear. The revelations about NSA surveillance produce carpet-chewing by the chattering class, but no disturbance in the apathetic majority — and so far few reforms. We might see the same with the police (with one exception: crackdowns on serial police offenders, whose legal settlements add up to real money).
We already see the first responses by the police and their defenders. We discussed and refuted the first wave yesterday: that this is nothing new, that nothing has changed, it’s just business as usual in America. This post looks at the second line of defense: only criminals have trouble with police!
Tell it to Tamir Rice
“Only criminals fear the police” is among the oddest delusions given as rebuttals to warnings about the dark evolution of law enforcement in America, given by those who refusal to see the increasing number of videos showing police abusing people committing no crime. Tamir Rice was executed in a playground. The video shows an officer jumping out of his car and immediately shooting him. His sister rushed to him, to be tackled and handcuffed. These videos show only the small fraction of such incidents that happen to get recorded and distributed.
Do we have more criminal children?
“[T]his time it was peanuts, but if we don’t get a handle on it, the next time it could be bodies.”
— Mississippi Sheriff after arresting 5 Black high school students for felony assault: throwing peanuts on a school bus (source).
We see the extreme demonstration of police gone wild in the increasing number of children arrested at school. Lawyers.com has a good article about this, and mentions two examples.
In Howard County, Baltimore, a 7-year old boy was arrested for illegally riding a dirt bike. He was handcuffed to a bench at police headquarters. His mother filed a lawsuit and the jury agreed that the police acted unlawfully by arresting the boy when they never saw him actually riding the bike. The officer caught him sitting on it.
In New York, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) brought a federal lawsuit after police arrested middle and high school students for activities such as writing on desks or trying to go to the bathroom without a pass. The NYCLU claims that students were handcuffed, arrested, injured, denied medical care, illegally interrogated, intimidated and humiliated by school safety officers.
The Daily Kos advises parents “Teach Your Child How to Survive Being Arrested at School” (the title alone shows how far we’ve come). It opens with some all-too-common examples of over-policing…
… a 5 year old arrested for having a temper tantrum in kindergarten and a 12 year old arrested for scribbling on a desk, a 13 year old boy was arrested for burping, a 5th grader arrested for giving a wedgie …
A nation where 5 year old boys are taken away in handcuffs is a nation in which elements of the police have slipped the reins and run wild. When law enforcement agencies attempt to pin high profile crimes on someone innocent but handy — when armed law enforcement officials raid Gibson Guitars with automatic weapons (the Federal agents misread the regs on importing rare wood), then anyone can have a policeman’s gun in their face. And accidents will happen when loaded guns are brandished.
.Good advice on the streets of America
For good advice about life on the streets of New America see Arrest-Proof Yourself
——————
Changes in law enforcement technique and doctrine that have occurred over the last few years mean that police are making more arrests than ever. You are more likely to get busted today than in the past. “But I’m a good guy,” you protest. If you’re a parent, you may say, “I have nice kids. Why should I worry about them getting arrested?” No matter how upstanding you are, you are likely to have encounters with police that can result in arrest. Here’s why:
(1) Improved technology and training enable police to arrest people for petty crimes that in the past were ignored due to lack of manpower and resources.
(2) A law enforcement doctrine called proactive policing has spread across the land. It calls for zero tolerance of petty offenses, including such things as jaywalking, loitering, and drinking a beer on the street. Proactive policing has reduced crime — no question — but to do so it requires huge numbers of arrests of petty offenders who in years past would never have seen the inside of a jail.
(3) The volume of arrests has caused a boom in jail and court construction and the creation of a criminal justice system that employs hundreds of thousands and requires ever more arrests to justify its existence.
(4) The near universal installation of computers in police cruisers, and their ability to access law enforcement databases instantly, allows police to make more arrests for what I call administrative crimes. These are failure to maintain tags, licenses, and car insurance; outstanding arrest warrants; driving with suspended licenses; failure to appear at court hearings; and violation of probation and parole. None of these crimes involves theft, violence, or injury. They are not offenses against people but against the state.
In the past, paper records made arrests for these crimes difficult, especially when the offender moved to another state. With the advent of computers, the jails are stuffed with people guilty of not paying fees, not doing paperwork, not showing up in court, and in general thumbing their noses at the system.
(5) People are shocked to discover that they can be arrested for things they didn’t even know were illegal. For example, millions of parents chauffeuring the kids in the van or SUV don’t realize that the stimulants and antidepressants prescribed for hyperactive children are scheduled narcotics. Kids carry these pills around in their pockets and book bags. The pills scatter inside the vehicle and can get Mom busted if she cannot produce a written prescription during a routine traffic stop.
(6) Dope, my friends, let’s talk about dope. The magic herb is everywhere, as are the powders and crystals that bliss out millions every day. America may be becoming more tolerant of drugs, but cops, courts, and legislatures are not. Almost any quantity of a controlled substance can get you arrested in most states. Most people have no idea how serious drug possession is.
(7) People have worse manners than in the past. Whether this is due to less effective parenting, a decline in church attendance, increased use of drugs, disorder at public schools, or the pervasive influence of TV shows where everyone is “in your face” is a topic best left to the talk shows. All I know for a fact is that people don’t know how to behave. They act out in front of cops and get busted for being obnoxious.
—————— End excerpt ——————
This is a follow-up to Do not talk to the police (important advice in New America).
(6) For More Information
For more about of what’s happening on our streets I recommend “The New Age of Counterinsurgency Policing” at TomDispatch.
For deeper understanding I recommend Radley Balko’s Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about the police, especially these…
- We are alone in the defense of the Republic.
- Do not talk to the police (important advice in New America).
- Police grow more powerful; the Republic slides another step into darkness. Can cellphone cameras save us?
- Shootings by police show their evolution into “security services”, bad news for the Republic.
- News good & bad about the fantastic growth of America’s security services.
- We can’t fix police violence because we don’t know the cause.
Another part of the equation is who becomes a cop. I heard a program once where someone who had studied policing in the US and thought the standards were incredibly low. Essentially a high school graduate who had no record with drugs was in. A very short training period, something like 6 weeks if I remember correctly, and you’re fully qualified.
ellifeld,
That’s an important point. People in the system have often told me that police attracts bullies — people who like pushing others around — and a certain number who enjoy beating people up. I wonder if psychological screening would help?
Psychological screening is part of the answer if background investigators use it properly. They don’t always. It’s a matter of public record that some police agencies deliberately reject applicants for being too intelligent. I’ve heard credible claims that the LAPD used psych exams to select for aggression, at least through the Gates administration. The Bratton and Beck administrations seem to have really improved recruitment and discipline standards, although there are still troubling allegations of uncontrolled aggression on the force (e.g., from Christopher Dorner).
Preferential recruitment of military veterans is another huge problem. The unfortunate truth is that some veterans return from deployment hardened into raging sadists or psychologically ruined. Many police agencies seem to make no effort to ensure that the veterans they’re hiring have good service records (in fact, not just on paper). It’s a manifestation of the insipid “thank you for your service” mentality, which fetishizes military service in principle and largely ignores how the military actually works. There’s a very real threat that a military veteran is a low-functioning bruiser who enlisted on a bad conduct waiver and spent his enlistment being schooled in the use of torture and unbridled aggression. Police departments need to screen veterans like this out of their applicant pool, but because the military is so fetishized, doing so is considered politically incorrect.
Norm Stamper told an anecdote to this effect in his memoir “Breaking Rank.” He was on an SDPD interview panel when a Marine veteran said that he had quit the Corps because there was “not enough discipline, sir” and graphically described how he would deal with an agitated citizen by beating him to a pulp. The panel rejected the guy because he was obviously too violent for the job. I fear that today he would not be at all unusual in the American police applicant pool.
Thanks for sharing this Fabius. This is an issue that I have become obsessed with after a personal experience with the system. I was a crime victim intent on putting the perpetrators behind bars. What I witnessed at the courthouse told me that most of the people in the room were every much a victim of an abusive system as I was of the crime. Truly disturbing. I’m working with the local public defender to try to turn this around locally, but this is clearly a national issue of great importance and I appreciate your sharing.
“… a 5 year old arrested for having a temper tantrum in kindergarten and a 12 year old arrested for scribbling on a desk, a 13 year old boy was arrested for burping, a 5th grader arrested for giving a wedgie …”
One should ask whether this reflects on police or on our society. I would assume someone called the police to deal with these young people. The question is why? Might it be that they are unable to handle the issue themselves, with out physically restraining the child, and or prescribing punishment, so by inviting the police to do it they are avoiding confrontation and liability suits from the child’s parents?
Doug,
“One should ask whether this reflects on police or on our society.”
I don’t understand your comment. The police are to a large extent self-regulating in America, so they have the primary responsibility for their deeds. As social scientists say, individual police and police departments have “agency”.
But the police are only one component of the government’s law enforcement machinery, so their systemic failures result in part from failures on the policy and supervisory levels above them. This is a standard observation — as in the example I cited yesterday (The 1991 “Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department”).
On a larger scale, we as citizens are responsible for the actions of our government — so a failure to institute reforms is our failure as well.
It’s a cascading system of failures, a commonplace when looking a large serious bad events. The failures of the higher levels don’t excuse those at the lower level, but point to lapses in responsibility at multiple levels.
Criminal Justice bears much similarity to healthcare. No one decision has created the problem. as a society we have reacted to specific stimuli, riots in the 1960’s, the very real crime wave of the 1970’s, the cocaine epidemic of the 70’s and 80’s, 9/11, etc. in doing so we have created permanent institutions that continue to look for new roles to justify their existence, which new roles then requires more resources, etc. The awareness of these issues clearly spiked after Michelle Alexander brought it to the nation’s attention in 2010. In the past year Ferguson, Baltimore, etc. have made the problem much more evident. The first trick to turning this around is to convince the public that we are not getting the results we think we are paying for when we demand more police, more jails, more crackdowns to solve social issues such as mental illness, poverty and in the near future technological disruption to the existing employment structure. For now the public has little conception of the costs, either in dollars or in the economic disruption that results from branding humans as criminals for petty offenses, many of which relate to poverty and education, including the inability to pay fines and otherwise effectively deal with a governmental complexity that would astound Kafka.
These arrests sound like they were initiated either by teachers or by police officers posted to schools. Some cases of this sort involve teachers who can’t (or won’t) maintain classroom discipline by themselves. It’s of a piece with the overprescription of psychotropic drugs like Ritalin to schoolchildren, especially boys, in order to suppress normal rambunctious behavior that is exacerbated by the unnaturally boring environment of the classroom.
You’re on to something when you suggest that society at large bears some of the blame. If you read Lenore Skenazy (“Free Range Kids”), you’ll see a depressing litany of cases in which busybody private citizens called the police just because they saw school-aged children out on the streets or hanging out in parks unsupervised. Skenazy chronicles abject failures of judgment on the part of third-party private citizens, police officers, and social workers alike.
Some of these people, I suspect, watch too much SVU and Nancy Grace. Sensationalized television programming about children disappearing into the clutches of sexually deviant, murderous strangers on a regular basis in a period of social cocooning (and low crime) has to be warping minds.
Andrew,
I agree on all points. Still, I find it extraordinary that police go along with this. It suggests that they have too many officers, or too little interest in fighting crime.
All around us we see a world of paradox: deep, ironic, and intractable. A world in which the hungry nations export food; the richest nations slip into demoralizing economic recessions; the strongest nations go to war against the smallest and weakest and are unable to win; a world in which revolutions against tyrannical systems themselves become tyrannies. In human affairs, celebrities receive still more publicity because they are “well known”; men rise to high positions because of their knowledge of affairs only to find themselves cut off from the sources of their knowledge … the list is endless. Ours is a world of paradox.
Why is this? How does it come about that things turn out so differently from what common sense would expect?
The religious person may blame it on original sin. The historian may cite the force of trends such as population growth and industrialization. The sociologist offers reasons rooted in the peculiarities of human associations. Reformers blame everything on “the system” and propose new systems that would – they assert – guarantee a brave new world of justice, peace, and abundance. Everyone, it seems, has his/her own idea of what the problem is and how it can be corrected. But all agree on one point – that their own system would work very well if only it were universally adopted.
The point of view espoused in this essay is more radical and at the same time more pessimistic. Stated as succinctly as possible, the fundamental problem does not lie in any particular system but rather in systems as such. Salvation, if it is attainable at all, even partially, is to be sought in a deeper understanding of the ways of all systems, not simply in a criticism of the errors of a particular system. But although people build systems almost instinctively, they do not lightly turn their ingenuity to the study of how systems work. That branch of knowledge is not congenial to human beings; it goes against the grain. Goal-oriented man, the upright ape with the spear, is interested in the end-result. If the spear flies wide of the mark, man is equally likely to trample it to bits in a rage or to blame the erratic flight on malevolent spirits. He is much less likely to undertake a critical analysis of hand-propelled missiles, and infinitely less likely to ponder the austere abstractions presented here.
If young people lack experience and interest for understanding how systems work, older persons are already defeated. They may have learned by direct experience a few things about systems, but their experience will have been fragmentary and painful. And in any case, for them the battle is over. No, only a handful – only a lucky few – ever come to clear awareness of this dread and obscure subject. Will you be one of those?
No one, these days, can avoid contact with systems. Systems are everywhere: big systems, little systems, systems mechanical and electronic, and those special systems that consist of organized associations of people. In self-defense, we must learn to live with systems, to control them lest they control us. As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice (though in another context): It’s just a question of who is to be master; that’s all.
http://futureshapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Systemantics-ex%E2%80%A6subscribers.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Systemantics-Systems-Work-Especially-They/dp/0812906748
http://www.bussigel.com/systemsforplay/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Systemantics.pdf
…No one, these days, can afford not to understand the basic principles of how systems work. Ignorance of those basic laws is bound to lead to unrealistic expectations of the type that have plagued dreamers, schemers, and so-called men of affairs from the earliest times. Clearly there is a great need for more widespread knowledge of those basic laws. But (and just here is another example of the paradoxical nature of systems-functions) there is a strange dearth of available information written for the general reader. Technical tomes of systems analysis and operations research abound on the shelves of science libraries and of business management institutes. But nowhere is there to be found a single basic primer that spells out the essential pragmatic facts of practical systems in the form of simple and easy-to-grasp axioms. Similarly there are no courses on systems function in our high schools and junior 2 colleges. Like sex education, systems sophistication has until recently been a taboo subject.
All over the world, in great metropolitan centers as well as in the remotest rural backwaters, in sophisticated electronics laboratories and in dingy clerical offices, people everywhere are struggling with a problem: Things aren’t working very well.
This, of course, is nothing new. People have been discouraged about things in general many times in the past. A good deal of discouragement prevailed during the Dark Ages, and morale was rather low in the Middle Ages too. The Industrial Revolution brought with it depressing times, and the Victorian era was felt by many to be particularly gloomy. At all times there have been people who felt that things weren’t working out very well. This observation has gradually come to be recognized as an ongoing fact of life, an inseparable component of the human condition. Because of its central role in all that follows (being the fundamental observation upon which all further research into systems has been based) it is known as the Primal Scenario of Systemantics. We give it here in full:
Things (things generally/all things/the whole works) are indeed notworking very well. In fact, they never did. In more formal terminology: Systems in general work poorly or not at all. More technically stated: Complicated systems seldom exceed five percent efficiency. But this fact, repeatedly observed by men and women down through the ages, has always in the past been attributed to various special circumstances. It has been reserved for our own time, and for a small band of individuals of genius (working mostly alone) to throw upon the whole subject the brilliant light of intuition, illuminating for all mankind the previously obscure reasons why “things so often go wrong”, or “don’t work”, or “work in ways never anticipated.”
No history of the subject would be complete without some reference to the semi- legendary, almost anonymous Murphy who chose to disguise his genius by stating a fundamental systems theorem in commonplace, almost pedestrian terminology. This law, known to schoolboys the world over as “jelly-bread always falls jelly side down” is here restated in Murphy’s own words, as it appears on the walls of most of the world’s scientific laboratories: If anything can go wrong, it will.
In Murphy’s Law, as thus formulated, there is a gratuitous and unjustified element 3 of teleology, an intrusion of superstition or even of belief in magic which we today would resolutely reject. The universe is not actually malignant, it only seems so. Shortly after Murphy, there appeared upon the scene a new and powerful mind, that of Count Alfred Korzybski, in whose honor the entire field of General Systemantics has been named. Korzybski was the author of General Semantics, a vaulting effort at a comprehensive explanation of Why Things Don’t Work. This early attempt to pinpoint the flaw in human systems was itself flawed, however, by the author’s monistic viewpoint. Korzybski seemed to have convinced himself that all breakdowns of human systems are attributable to misunderstandings – in brief, to failures of communication.
Wences,
Please don’t bomb the thread with such long excerpts. It’s bad form to post 1,200 words. That’s an essay, and this is not the place for that. Please limit your comments to a few hundred words. If you have something for people to read, give a summary and a link.
Also — I worry about copyright violations — and I have better things to think about, and will just delete long excerpts. Or anything that looks like a long excerpt.
I have an anecdote: A close friend of mine has a daughter who wanted to join the police department for a large city in the Western US. She was evaluated and found to have some attributes that suggested aggressiveness, etc… and was not allowed to join the police department. She then applied to another police department in another city, this one in Texas, and was accepted. She shot a suspect within several months of graduating from the police academy.
Jason,
That’s quite an extraordinary story, given the tiny fraction of officers who fire their gun in an entire career, and the smaller number who hit anyone. But anything is possible.
Fabius – I know, it’s unusual. We’ve all heard the cliché of the cop who never drew a gun during a 20+ year career! What’s worrying is that despite supposed standards, one can seemingly shop-around for a police department with sufficiently low standards. Who would have thought the low standards would be in Texas…. Hmmm…
Jason,
Great point. More vivid examples are the cops fired for excessive violence easily hired by other departments. Doctors and stockbrokers have their entire records a matter of public record, with every black dot forever recorded. Not so the guys wielding guns.
Editor,
Reforming the police is adding more systems, more complexity. it aint gonna work (see Edward N Luttwak). The more relevant questions here are why do we need a police system? What brought about the need for one? How can we shut it down. You cant reform The Matrix.
We do need police. There are bad guys out there that hurt people. The issue is that we have vested the police with responsibility for issues they can’t solve like mental health and at the same time we have declared failure to pay a variety of fees to be a crime. At its most non-nonsensical, this means we take away a person’s drivers license because she cannot pay the fine for driving without a license while going to work to earn the money to pay the fine from the last offense. In effect we have recreated the debtors’ prisons that were once common in Europe, but now banned. At the same time we have concluded as a society that whole classes of citizens are outlaws. Funny thing is that if you brand people as outlaws and exclude them from the benefits of civilized society, they have less incentive to not behave as outlaws.
W3nces,
It’s always nice to hear the delusional but confident nonsense of libertarians. Much like the scientists of Laputa, they gaze at the stars but don’t see the Earth.
I suggest you visit Europe or Japan. Their police systems work quite well. For perfection you can hope to eventually see Heaven.
Im not a fucking libertarian, Im a Kirchnerist. I have lived in Japan, Europe and the US, in addition of other 15 countries. Have you heard of the phrase “Heaven On Earth”?
Not sure how people would hold Argentina up as a model of 21st century success.
John, we have the best pu**y in the world and we dont get jailed for not paying fees, we dont pay 600 billion a year for BS, it depend on how you define success I guess
My apologies for parochialism. No one know who returns from Argentina says anything other than great things about the experience. I read Fabius because I agree with him that America has tremendously difficult issues not always handled in a very healthy way. I was not making comparisons, just reflecting perceptions. That said the world grades countries on lots of factors and I stand by my statement about the world’s opinion, which takes into account handling of external debt among other things. Regardless, Argentina benefits from a level of demographic stability that we do not have in an increasingly diverse America. Your solutions would not work here. We have to play them where they lay.
John,
How do you shut down a Police Matrix? you ask? exploit their natural proclivities to corruption, corrupt them to self evident levels, then take them down. Thats how we do it in Latin America
Another way to look at this is that you have already experienced the world that Fabius fears we are heading toward.
John, Indeed I have, Latin America has been used as an experiment, thus, I come from the future.
Another intance of vectors of attack that can win
legalize all drugs, that will deprive them of money and excuses to exist.
Fabius Maximus,
This comment is more directed at the series than the particular post.
Have you considered the veneration of the police officer in America? As a veteran from our current wars, it’s interesting to hear politicians talk about doing everything in their power to keep police safe while the same group was just fine with soldiers fighting in insufficiently armored vehicles. A soldier is not venerated to the same degree cops are even though the danger is greater.
When discussing police aggression, there seems to be no party that suggests that cops not control their feelings when they feel threatened. The only acceptable response in our body politic is that a threatened cop be given free reign to defend themselves. That’s not the position we articulate to our military. That’s not the position we hold for our soldiers, airmen, sailors or marines. Rules of Engagement govern our soldiers while “fear for safety” seems to be what governs our police. We seem to both expect that police will do their duty under fire and back them up on not doing that if they are shot at (as recent events in New York city suggest).
PF Khans
PFK,
“Have you considered the veneration of the police officer in America?”
Yes — Every year, when Gallup publishes their Confidence in Institutions Poll. See last year’s post.
“to hear politicians talk about doing everything in their power to keep police safe while the same group was just fine with soldiers fighting in insufficiently armored vehicles.”
I don’t believe that is correct. Nobody was “fine” with that. Rumsfeld correctly said you fight with the army you have. Given the rapid advance of the military arts during the past 2 centuries, wars always start with equipment that doesn’t well match the needs. New equipment cannot be wished into existence. When the problem arouse DoD produced the up-armored HUMVEEs and eventually MRAPs.
Could it have been done faster? Yes; Heaven’s army works better than ours. By the standards of history, DoD did this better than most. There were horrific stories by equipment deficiencies slowly or never fixed in WWII.
PFK,
I don’t believe your second point is correct, either. Soldiers and police are both told about rules of engagement. I doubt you can find much evidence that soldiers are held to theirs more strongly than police are to theirs. Even outright massacres of civilians are often not prosecuted, or done so lightly (to see the extreme case of this: Lt Calley in Vietnam). In fact so long as they kill the right people, neither police or soldiers are often punished for ROE violations.
Fabius Maximus,
Perhaps “fine” is not the appropriate term. Of course everyone supports and trusts the troops and the cops. And of course there are expectations that cops will resolve conflicts without violence. But there is a difference.
Just consider that Officer Darren Wilson received over $400,000 in donations from “supporters” across the country for participating in the slaying that caused large scale civil disturbances across the country. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-fundraisers-20140901-story.html#page=1
Did Robert Bales receive any sort of support for his actions? What about the “Kill Team”? Or the Hadytha incident? The US military avoids and suppresses “strategic corporals” while cops in the US appear to rally behind them.
Or consider the “assassination” of the New York cop, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/0508/Thousands-attend-funeral-for-NYPD-officer, thousands rally. When was the last time a dead US soldier got such a public display of support over their death? Or that when the two police officers were killed in New York earlier this year the cops there proceeded to disrespect their civilian bosses and engage in a slowdown with no consequences.
General McChrystal got canned for less. And during the debate over the government shutdown, the US government was not planning on paying the military for the duration of the crisis (in 2011) because of course the military will do its duty.
Seems like there’s a difference to me, though perhaps I haven’t articulated it yet.
PF Khans
PFK,
Wow, that’s a weird comment. Are you seriously comparing Wilson’s shooting of a large criminal who had fought him seconds before — with the Robert Bates, the soldier who committed the Kandahar massacre? Killing 16 civilians, including 9 children. That’s quite mad.
As for the difference between execution of a cop at home: extraordinary events at home that threaten the domestic order get public displays. The average cop who dies doesn’t get such attention, any more than thousands who died in our wars since 9/11.
General McChrystal got canned because he was a senior general who challenged the President.
Your comment is just weird.
Fabius Maximus,
Whoops. That was not the person I thought it was, good catch!
PF Khans
“I don’t believe that is correct. Nobody was “fine” with that. Rumsfeld correctly said you fight with the army you have.”
Editor,
You are a lunatic
Lautra,
Most people outgrow debate by name calling by 7th grade. But apparently not everybody…
Pingback: Reforms are coming to America’s police, either with them or over them. Which? | Occupy The Bronx