Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   End Mass Incarceration Now   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11119 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 May 2014 at 8:21 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



342 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-05-26 05:44:13 AM  

Frederick: fredbox: Honestly, I view tweakers as lost causes anyway.

Those tweakers who you see as lost causes, would be lost causes regardless of meth use.  It's the individual, not the drug use to blame.

I've known too many people who have successfully walked away from meth to blame the drug.


I'll accept your point on that. Similarly the stereotypical "duuuuude" pothead would probably still be an idiot if they stopped smoking cannabis.

Insamuch as most drug use is concerned, the physical damage is typically reversible to a point (say, cirrhosis in drinkers or COPD in smokers). Meth causes irreversible brain damage with even casual use.
 
2014-05-26 05:55:04 AM  
Many red posts in this thread. Looks like some people get a really good feeling out of punishing others.
 
2014-05-26 05:57:49 AM  
OK, fine, I'll admit something here. See this bench?

upload.wikimedia.org

I ran several laps around it without reporting each lap to US or Canadian immigrations. That pretty much makes me an international spy/terrorist, right?
 
2014-05-26 06:14:26 AM  

fredbox: Insamuch as most drug use is concerned, the physical damage is typically reversible to a point (say, cirrhosis in drinkers or COPD in smokers). Meth causes irreversible brain damage with even casual use.


Likewise there are the intelligent cannabis users.  Carl Sagan a notorious example.

fredbox: Insamuch as most drug use is concerned, the physical damage is typically reversible to a point (say, cirrhosis in drinkers or COPD in smokers). Meth causes irreversible brain damage with even casual use.


Perhaps.  If you compare studies of cannabis use from 30 years ago with recent studies, a difference in conclusions is clear.  And I believe those conclusion echo the social perceptions and laws of the places and times.  Compare studies in the US to studies abroad.  There are differences in conclusions.  In the past those conclusions could have been taken straight from "Reefer Madness".  Now there are studies detailing the benefits (horrors!).

I think a similar thing will happen with methamphetamine over time.  As the stigma is exposed, real unbiased studies can be accepted.

http://www.ibtimes.com/meth-epidemic-overblown-columbia-psychologist s- looks-evidence-behind-media-hype-1556733
 
2014-05-26 06:19:15 AM  
Damnit my quotes got messed up:

fredbox: I'll accept your point on that. Similarly the stereotypical "duuuuude" pothead would probably still be an idiot if they stopped smoking cannabis.

 
Likewise there are the intelligent cannabis users.  Carl Sagan a notorious example.
 
2014-05-26 06:29:00 AM  
Frederick:
 
Likewise there are the intelligent cannabis users.  Carl Sagan a notorious example.


I actually once had a derpist try to make the argument with me that he stunted his intellect with cannabis, and lament that he would have contributed so much more to humanity if only he had not been a cannabis user.

One of those times I wished a good old fashioned pink box would work over TCP/IP.
 
2014-05-26 06:42:58 AM  

Honest Bender: Stop breaking the law!


Stop discrimination against poor white people and black people. Force corporations to pay people a living wage so they don't have to break the law to survive.
 
2014-05-26 07:06:38 AM  
I agree with the article %100

/conservative libertarian
 
2014-05-26 07:12:17 AM  

TheWhoppah: hem legally is rather difficult.


The French managed to do it 200 years ago.  Surely we can manage today?!?


French managed diddly squat with their revolution, they are in the same damn mess as everyone else, with the top 10% or less of the population owning everything.
/mass incarceration did not end with the storming of the Bastille, there were only 7 prisoners.
 
2014-05-26 07:14:23 AM  

SunsetLament: What would today's violent crime rate be if we emptied the prisons?


www.desmogblog.com
 
2014-05-26 07:30:58 AM  

wildcardjack: Of course, we've never had mass incarceration in modern times. It's been more massively paralellel prosecuted. FEMA camps are for when the mass incarceration of left handed people comes to fore.


That's a sinister idea.
 
2014-05-26 07:34:18 AM  

vinniethepoo: wildcardjack: Of course, we've never had mass incarceration in modern times. It's been more massively paralellel prosecuted. FEMA camps are for when the mass incarceration of left handed people comes to fore.

That's a sinister idea.


Thread over. Good night everyone.
 
2014-05-26 08:06:55 AM  
Still no cure for incarceration.
 
2014-05-26 08:46:49 AM  

Mr.Bobo: taurusowner: TheHighlandHowler: Everyone is on this bandwagon until a friend/famly-member gets robbed or worse.  Then they want to throw away the key.

Well that's why the article specifically points out the number of people who are incarcerated for non-violent crimes.


End Drug Prohibition. It's not a government's role to tell citizens what they can and cannot consume. That alone will drop the number of people incarcerated for non-violent crimes that shouldn't be crimes in the first place. And it will free up space and manpower to deal with the people who are robbing others, or worse.

Amen!


Making a contribution to NORML or MPP would be a good start for anyone.
 
GBB
2014-05-26 08:50:49 AM  

profplump: TheHighlandHowler: Then they want to throw away the key.

Which is why we don't let victims of crime determine the punishment for offenders.


Oh, but we do.  We do all the time.  We do so with protests and charities and programs.  We see all the time victims of crimes that look at the perpetrator and ask, "Why were they release from jail/prison in the first place?  If they were in prison longer, then they wouldn't have been able to victimize me ....  or anyone else!"  And right there, people start petitioning for longer, harsher sentences for crimes of all sort.  And when we can no longer justify longer sentences, then we start creating registries.  And once the registries start, then we can impose restrictions on those on the registries.

Victims have exerted more control on the punishment of offenders than anyone outside the system can imagine.  Unless you are talking about victims determining punishment for  their offenders.  In which case, they go to the sentencing phase and plead for torture, or short of that, locked away and throw away the key.
 
2014-05-26 09:02:40 AM  

BigLuca: Snarfangel: fusillade762: kvinesknows: simple solution.

every convict is put in isolation. only out for visitations, trials, medical issues

That's your solution to what, exactly? Prisoner sanity?


Ha, that's silly. We would of course put lithium in the water.

That's really not a bad idea.


That would be the end of the whole mess.
 
2014-05-26 09:31:35 AM  
End Jose Encarnacion!
 
2014-05-26 09:59:09 AM  
End the war on some drugs.  Make all drug dealers register and pay taxes.  And if a drug dealer sells drugs to somebody's child and the parent then kills said drug dealer, punish the parent by making them pay, say, a $25 fine.

/Guns don't kill
//Fathers with daughters kill
 
2014-05-26 10:10:23 AM  

Nemo's Brother: jaytkay: ThrobblefootSpectre: jaytkay: WTF?  Here's your incarceration rate "falling for decades".

BTW - funny thing about that graphic.  It cites its source as dated 1986, and shows data up to 2000+.  Think about it.  Lol.

Doh! You're right. That was a projected rate.

But you're still deluded about the rate falling for decades.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 693x464]

Two things happened in the early 80s that I think are factors.  The War on Drugs was in full effect.  Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals. This embolded millions of others to jump the border and have led to where we were.


This bears repeating.  We have history as proof that amnesty only causes the illegal immigration problem to get worse.  This is the main reason why republicans are so dead set against it.  Its a solution that sounds nice but makes the problem worse in practice.  The ONLY way amnesty could ever work is if the borders where actually and really secured.  The numbers of illegals in the country is proof that we have porous borders.
 
2014-05-26 10:20:31 AM  

Maul555: This is the main reason why republicans are so dead set against it.



Well, no.
 
2014-05-26 10:31:46 AM  

Maul555: Nemo's Brother: jaytkay: ThrobblefootSpectre: jaytkay: WTF?  Here's your incarceration rate "falling for decades".

BTW - funny thing about that graphic.  It cites its source as dated 1986, and shows data up to 2000+.  Think about it.  Lol.

Doh! You're right. That was a projected rate.

But you're still deluded about the rate falling for decades.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 693x464]

Two things happened in the early 80s that I think are factors.  The War on Drugs was in full effect.  Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals. This embolded millions of others to jump the border and have led to where we were.

This bears repeating.  We have history as proof that amnesty only causes the illegal immigration problem to get worse.  This is the main reason why republicans are so dead set against it.  Its a solution that sounds nice but makes the problem worse in practice.  The ONLY way amnesty could ever work is if the borders where actually and really secured.  The numbers of illegals in the country is proof that we have porous borders.



It just means our land border is too long.

Now, if the U.S. border was at the Panama Canal...

/I've always wanted a moat.
 
2014-05-26 11:23:43 AM  

Z-clipped: There's been a very small reduction over the last 8 years in some states.  The US incarceration rate is still incredibly, unacceptably high, largely due to non-violent (drug-related) offenses.

And nobody is going to buy your bald assertion that this small drop is in any way related to the existence of private prisons, given the flatly incorrect bullshiat you opened with in the thread. Sorry, but you lost any credibility you might have had in Weeners.  Troll again later.



It's a significant decrease.  And it's in the entire U.S. overall.  Sorry but you lost any credibility you had.

And you flat out lie.  I didn't make any assertion about causation with private prisons, other than note (factually) that the two trends are concurrent.  I did so only because so many people seem to blame the "rising" incarceration rate on private prisons. Which is a ridiculously stupid.  I wanted to post a fact in a thread full of the usual fark PC derp.  I simply wanted to post the facts instead to counter the politically convenient stupidity.

I will note that MANY people blame the incarceration rate on private prisons, even though they make up only 10% of prisons.  You seem to have no qualms with dozens of obviously unsupported assertions as those .  No surprise there.  But a fact causes you to go ballistic.

Why do the facts make trolls so angry? Sorry z, no one is buying your blatant lies.
 
2014-05-26 11:50:44 AM  

Hermione_Granger: Honest Bender: Stop breaking the law!

Stop discrimination against poor white people and black people. Force corporations to pay people a living wage so they don't have to break the law to survive.


Do you really think the ones committing crimes are corporate material?
 
2014-05-26 12:05:23 PM  

Giltric: Hermione_Granger: Honest Bender: Stop breaking the law!

Stop discrimination against poor white people and black people. Force corporations to pay people a living wage so they don't have to break the law to survive.

Do you really think the ones committing crimes are corporate material?


Sure, because corporations are evil and so murderers and rapists will fit right in.

/this is what libtards believe
//then they wonder why all the "alternative energy" research keeps turning out to be fraudulent
///news flash: fill the corporate labs with criminals, and you get nothing but pseudo-science
 
2014-05-26 12:21:15 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Dirty J1: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Mrbogey: Fine, you're right, prisons are the reason why America's cities are turning into ghetto warzones. we gotta ban those things right away and toke on a nice spliff. Then we'll know peace.

Giving a kid a rap sheet for the heinous crime of "toking on a nice spliff" has no effect whatsoever on his chances of gainful employment.

Um yes it does in fact.

Methinks I need to make my sarcasm more explicit.

Employers are legally allowed to not hire at their will as long as its not sex/race/religion based. Employers see a rap sheet for doing drugs and they will automatically assume the worst, being that they will show up high and be a danger/nuisance. And if they got another guy with the exact same credentials but no drug history, they are going to hire the one with no drug history. Perhaps even someone with worse credentials and no drug history, because most employers would rather have an inexperienced guy who they can just train than a guy who knows what he's doing but is likely to show up high and cause accidents. Trust me on this, I've spoken with dozens upon dozens of employers, asking them what they look for in an employee. It's remarkably similar across the board, especially their hiring policies as they pertain to former druggies.

If you substitute booze for weed, you see how ridiculous the above is.  If I show up to work drunk or stoned, that's one thing.  If I got busted for possession ten years ago,  it's absurd to continue to exclude me from employment, from housing, from education.  It all but ensures that I'm going to do something far worse than smoking a joint.  People have this funny habit of not starving quietly.

But right wing loons like Mrbogey think that's fine and dandy.


That may be true, but employers still reserve the right to be very discriminatory during hiring. Now firing you after hiring you is different, they are alot more restricted on what they can fire you for. But hiring is different. They can decide not to hire you simply because they don't like you for any reason, but they don't have to explain it that way. They can just say they don't believe you are qualified enough or something legit. Immoral maybe, but not illegal. Most employment laws that protect from discrimination apply for those employed already, not those interviewing for a job. Employers can snake around those anti discrimination laws while interviewing if they want, and get away with it rather easily. Granted they may overlook a 10 year old weed possession charge, but the point is that they dont HAVE to overlook it. And as for not hiring you making you become more self destructive..... Well employers don't really care. They are running a business and will only invest in your health and well being if they hire you.
 
2014-05-26 12:23:47 PM  
modern day slavery in the land of the free.
 
2014-05-26 12:23:57 PM  

fredbox: SunsetLament:
Having an arrest record doesn't make you a criminal; it makes you a criminal that got caught.  Committing crimes makes you a criminal.  I notice you left out whether or not you have committed crimes ... you know, like "possession of a controlled substance"?

Like most Americans, I unknowingly commit around three felonies a day. In the past I've been especially guilty of Clean Air Act violations but I've since stopped eating at Taco Bell. I do tire how your ilk automatically assume that anyone advocating the repeal of drug prohibition must by default be a drug user, however. I don't assume every cop has shot someone without justification and gotten away with it, or planted evidence, or accepted free "gratuities" from merchants.


As much as you "tire" of my assumption that you are/were an illegal drug user, I can't help but notice (again) that you skipped over answering my question ... have you committed the federal felony of "illegal possession of a controlled substance"?
 
2014-05-26 01:13:33 PM  

Dirty J1: Well from reading the abridged versions I'm still in the clear. But I'm sure you spent the time reading all 200+ pages of both of them, so why don't you give some specifics then? If you're gonna talk shiat, at least have the balls to have all your ducks in a row first, so to speak.


Just because you are oblivious to the world around you doesn't mean that I don't have my "ducks in a row." And, personally, I don't care if you understand that you commit crimes daily. Judging from your previous posts in this thread, it's painfully obvious that you are one of the reasons that people read Fark just because of all the idiots who post here. But it's safe to assume that you wouldn't turn yourself in; you're only tough on crime when other people are the criminals.

You may now continue with your tough-guy rant.
 
2014-05-26 01:14:31 PM  
Q: How can you trust a person that breaks a well-known law that they don't like, simply because they don't feel like following it?
A: You can't.

Even if the law IS stupid, so is your choice to risk punishment by breaking it.  ESPECIALLY if the punishment is known to be out of balance with the seriousness of the offense.  Breaking a law like THAT shows extremely poor judgement!  Risking incarceration for a short drug high when there are legal intoxicants available?  Sorry but you are just plain dumb and you make horrible decisions.  You have branded yourself and your criminal history is now available to worn the rest of us responsible people that you are a selfish and short-sighted person.  When I am looking for a trustworthy employee I don't care if you get high but I do care if you make idiotic decisions in high-stakes situations.  I can't have that.
 
2014-05-26 01:42:17 PM  

TheWhoppah: Q: How can you trust a person that breaks a well-known law that they don't like, simply because they don't feel like following it?
A: You can't.

Even if the law IS stupid, so is your choice to risk punishment by breaking it.  ESPECIALLY if the punishment is known to be out of balance with the seriousness of the offense.  Breaking a law like THAT shows extremely poor judgement!  Risking incarceration for a short drug high when there are legal intoxicants available?  Sorry but you are just plain dumb and you make horrible decisions.  You have branded yourself and your criminal history is now available to worn the rest of us responsible people that you are a selfish and short-sighted person.  When I am looking for a trustworthy employee I don't care if you get high but I do care if you make idiotic decisions in high-stakes situations.  I can't have that.


I'll bet you're a lot of fun on Holocaust Remembrance Day.
 
2014-05-26 01:44:13 PM  

DrPainMD: TheWhoppah: Q: How can you trust a person that breaks a well-known law that they don't like, simply because they don't feel like following it?
A: You can't.

Even if the law IS stupid, so is your choice to risk punishment by breaking it.  ESPECIALLY if the punishment is known to be out of balance with the seriousness of the offense.  Breaking a law like THAT shows extremely poor judgement!  Risking incarceration for a short drug high when there are legal intoxicants available?  Sorry but you are just plain dumb and you make horrible decisions.  You have branded yourself and your criminal history is now available to worn the rest of us responsible people that you are a selfish and short-sighted person.  When I am looking for a trustworthy employee I don't care if you get high but I do care if you make idiotic decisions in high-stakes situations.  I can't have that.

I'll bet you're a lot of fun on Holocaust Remembrance Day.


Godwin on the 333rd post?  That's weak.
 
2014-05-26 02:01:12 PM  

TheHighlandHowler: gets robbed or worse. T


Not exactly the same thing as people doing jail time for...marijuana possession. Go google the stats for black vs white marijuana sentences and tell me the US isn't racist as fark (I almost typed "facist as ruck"!).
 
2014-05-26 02:13:23 PM  
I say empty the prisons and get rid of the criminal judicial system.  Americans like nothing more than to be outraged over something.  This is due, for the most part, because most Americans have nothing to do, but look forward to being outraged over something.
 
2014-05-26 02:46:59 PM  

TheWhoppah: The French managed to do it 200 years ago. Surely we can manage today?!?


What do you think the point behind gun control is, anyway?
 
2014-05-26 03:01:56 PM  

FredPhelp'slovechild: Fair enough, and basically I agree, certainly with the idea that once a felon you're screwed and that's not the right approach. My problem is with someone selling drugs being considered non-violent. We have seen in this country and others that those peddling this stuff can resort to some pretty hideous stuff when business is threatened. I'm not sure going easy on them is the right approach.


You don't have to be "not sure" about anything.  Virtually all social problems associated with drugs are in fact caused by drug laws. If drugs were legal to sell, legitimate retailers would replace the violent criminals.

Anyone who disagrees has a heavy burden of proof, given the lessons of Prohibition.
 
2014-05-26 03:14:56 PM  

SunsetLament: Ed Grubermann: SunsetLament: fusillade762: Mrbogey: I'm okay with releasing them if we can enforce an exile to another state. If we can toss every gunman, rapist, and burglar from New Orleans into Manhattan, I'd see no problem.

America's prison population is exploding because Americans are becoming more criminal. That's how societal collapse works folks.

Bullshiat.

[content.gallup.com image 556x303]

What would today's violent crime rate be if we emptied the prisons?  HINT: It'd be higher, and that's what we're avoiding with current policy.

Who's talking about emptying the prisons? We're talking about not locking up non-violent criminals. Again, do you people have no shades of gray in your lives? Do you not understand nuance?

No, it's just that I have a background in the criminal justice system (both law enforcement and legal) and therefore am aware of (and acknowledge) reality ... which is ... we don't "lock-up" non-violent criminals unless (a) we are certain they are involved in violent crime - it's just we can't prove it in a courtroom beyond all reasonable doubt, or (b) we are certain they have information about those involved in violent crime that they refuse to disclose.  We don't have the manpower to go around arresting and prosecuting the pothead consumer/user on the corner absent other reasons.


I'm honestly not sure if you could possible be more ignorantly incorrect about everything you just said.
 
2014-05-26 03:19:40 PM  

DrPainMD: TheWhoppah: Q: How can you trust a person that breaks a well-known law that they don't like, simply because they don't feel like following it?
A: You can't.

Even if the law IS stupid, so is your choice to risk punishment by breaking it.  ESPECIALLY if the punishment is known to be out of balance with the seriousness of the offense.  Breaking a law like THAT shows extremely poor judgement!  Risking incarceration for a short drug high when there are legal intoxicants available?  Sorry but you are just plain dumb and you make horrible decisions.  You have branded yourself and your criminal history is now available to worn the rest of us responsible people that you are a selfish and short-sighted person.  When I am looking for a trustworthy employee I don't care if you get high but I do care if you make idiotic decisions in high-stakes situations.  I can't have that.

I'll bet you're a lot of fun on Holocaust Remembrance Day.


So if I don't want to hire people that make poor decisions that makes me a Nazi?
OK.  Sieg heil then, fine whatever. Way to trivialize the Nazis on memorial day, doctor.
 
2014-05-26 03:33:11 PM  

chapman: tinfoil-hat maggie: The problem is GNP. Yep you heard that right Gov. Jerry Brown explained it 20 years ago

You have one poor guy making only 12K a year. That's 12k for GNP.

But put him her in prison he makes $0, yet you have to pay people to be guards, you have to pay people to build new prisons. You have to make contracts to feed the guy with food companies/

That one poor guy that's locked up is now provide a whole lot more to the GNP than that measly 12 k.

That's just a variation of the broken windows fallacy.  It's nonsense.


Came here to say this.  It gives those people work, just like the window replacement guy in the fallacy, but the overall wealth of the town has decreased, not increased.
 
2014-05-26 04:02:09 PM  

Dirty J1: Yea sure..... Lets just end incarceration all together and let all these prisoners just mingle back into society...... What could possibly go wrong? If they want a viable solution to this incarceration problem, perhaps more executions are in order. Start executing life sentancers without parole, then just move on to all the ones who committed violent crimes, and then look at the nonviolent criminals on a case by case basis. This does 2 important things: lowers prison count and keeps the more violent ones from ever having a chance at coming back and repeating whatever they did.


Nice false dichotomy you got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it...

... like a Reality Check
 
2014-05-26 08:28:33 PM  
SunsetLament:

As much as you "tire" of my assumption that you are/were an illegal drug user, I can't help but notice (again) that you skipped over answering my question ... have you committed the federal felony of "illegal possession of a controlled substance"?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Since earlier in this thread you identified yourself as a law enforcement officer, the only answer I will give you to any direct question you pose is "I decline to answer any questions without my attorney present." And he's gonna be in the drunk tank till tomorrow afternoon.

So, just out of curiosity, is your LEO capacity as a federal agent or state/county/local?
 
2014-05-26 08:48:57 PM  

fredbox: SunsetLament:

As much as you "tire" of my assumption that you are/were an illegal drug user, I can't help but notice (again) that you skipped over answering my question ... have you committed the federal felony of "illegal possession of a controlled substance"?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Since earlier in this thread you identified yourself as a law enforcement officer, the only answer I will give you to any direct question you pose is "I decline to answer any questions without my attorney present." And he's gonna be in the drunk tank till tomorrow afternoon.

So, just out of curiosity, is your LEO capacity as a federal agent or state/county/local?


First of all, it's former LEO capacity ... and it was federal.  Second, it was really *rolls eyes* difficult to figure out you were/are a pothead.  Third, I'm actually for drug legalization, but it doesn't help your argument when you make up BS about cops to try and persuade (literal) morons.  Just say "Hey, I'm a pothead and I want to do drugs without going to jail" and let the chips fall where they may; either society agrees with your or not.  Finally, right now, the law says you can't do illegal drugs ... so if you get caught with illegal drugs?  Too bad, so sad.  Follow the farking law like everyone else - that's how it works in society.
 
2014-05-26 10:38:01 PM  
SunsetLament:
First of all, it's former LEO capacity ... and it was federal.  Second, it was really *rolls eyes* difficult to figure out you were/are a pothead.  Third, I'm actually for drug legalization, but it doesn't help your argument when you make up BS about cops to try and persuade (literal) morons.  Just say "Hey, I'm a pothead and I want to do drugs without going to jail" and let the chips fall where they may; either society agrees with your or not.  Finally, right now, the law says you can't do illegal drugs ... so if you get caught with illegal drugs?  Too bad, so sad.  Follow the farking law like everyone else - that's how it works in society.

What BS about cops? I provided a few examples. There's thousands more. You have Google the same as I. Of course, there's the likelihood you're writing off the entire fourth estate as "paranoid pothead conspiracy" because journalists can be profiled as potheads, like anyone with long hair in a profile pic.

Anyway, I do follow the farking law. I'm the asshat pissing you off by driving the actual speed limit and coming to complete and full stops at stop signs for not less than a one-thousand-one count after my front suspension loads and releases from braking thus guaranteeing all momentum relative to the surface of the earth has dissipated. However, that's "suspicious driving", so I get pulled over during saturation patrols. Of course, driving 56 is PC for speeding, which is also a pullover. And admittedly I have had a couple taillight warnings when they've burnt out after my departure inspection. Of course one of those taillight warnings involved 5 cruisers because "boys, we got us a longhair".

Anyway, if you don't believe there are corrupt LEO using bogus K9 hits and drop bags on people, and corrupt prosecutors looking for conviction numbers at any cost, I have an attorney who'd rescue a choking baby before picking up a bag of money to sell you. I do believe most LEO are trying to do the right thing and there is a very slim minority that are corrupt (except for some particular agencies where corruption is the culture), but as someone else mentioned above, even the good ones are increasingly viewing the non-LEO population as an insurgency.

In a nutshell, during the course of my life, America overall has come from the bastion of freedom standing against the Soviet empire, to becoming the Soviet empire itself. Which I believe gets back to the point of the original article that started this thread.

We've got to dial this back if we're going to have any legitimate claim to have won the Cold War or GWOT at all.

But if you're more concerned that some people advocating dialing it back on the internet are, in your opinion, "potheads", then just keep funding more prisons, and eventually you'll put your shovel in the wrong mud puddle in front of an EPA official or eventually you'll push your lawnmower over the eagle feather you didn't notice in your yard in front of a USFWS agent, and you can find out for yourself how the rest of us live just for not having badges.
 
Displayed 42 of 342 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report