> If I weren’t out here every day battling the white man, I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity—because you can hardly mention anything I’m not curious about. -Malcolm X


Most Helpful For Me:

-The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho (Fiction)


Uplifting Inspiration:

-Life Lines: Holding On (and Letting Go) (Beacon Press)

-The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine ($0.99 ebook)

-The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth ($0.99 ebook; Beacon Press)

-A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power by former Pres. Jimmy Carter

-How Should We Live?: Great Ideas from the Past for Everyday Life

-The Art of InterGroup Peace (Free PDF ebook.)

-Place, Not Race: A New Vision of Opportunity in America (Speaks of the pitfalls of college affirmative action, yet, the lessons apply beyond that as well; Beacon Press.)


Philanthropy/Social Enterprises:

-The Moral Measure of the Economy

-To Uphold the World: A Call for a New Global Ethic from Ancient India (Buddhist-inspired governing/economics; Beacon Press)

-A Force for Good: The Dalai Lama's Vision for Our World

-Our Day to End Poverty: 24 Ways You Can Make a Difference

-The Power of Partnership: Seven Relationships that Will Change Your Life

-Toxic Charity: How the Church Hurts Those They Help and How to Reverse It

-Charity Detox: What Charity Would Look Like If We Cared About Results by the author of Toxic Charity

-Inspired Philanthropy: Your Step-by-Step Guide to Creating a Giving Plan and Leaving a Legacy


Self-Care:

-Trauma Stewardship: An Everyday Guide to Caring for Self While Caring for Others

-This Is Where You Belong: The Art and Science of Loving the Place You Live

-Everyday Spiritual Practice: Simple Pathways for Enriching Your Life (Skinner House Books)


Children:

-Critical Lessons: What our Schools Should Teach

-Mind in the Making: The Seven Essential Life Skills Every Child Needs

-Three Key Years: Talk - Read - Play - Sing To Support & Help Every Child in America (Free PDF ebook.)


Nature/Wildlife:

-The Ten Trusts: What We Must Do to Care for The Animals We Love by Jane Goodall & Marc Bekoff

-The Souls of Animals by UU Rev. Gary Kowalski

-Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature

> You can't say Trump doing it is okay because Bush did.

Don't put words in mouth that aren't there: it isn't good for an elected official to have conflicts of interest. I think both candidates in 2016 offered differing conflicts of interest, but that's a different story.

> I think maybe a better question is when did this sort of behavior become acceptable?

Glenn Greenwald argues in his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" that American Democracy and government fundamentally changed when Richard Nixon was pardoned. I think that's part of the answer - since that event we've really viewed the elected officials as a ruling class; thus exempt from moral and ethical conditions we apply to ourselves.

But there's also an ideological root to all the acceptance of this; core to the belief of Ayn Rand and some libertarians is that business leaders should make the best public leaders. So, if you've been successful in private business you ought to have influence in public policy as well.

With the rise of H.W. Bush (Sr.) as Vice President of Ronald Reagan, this ideology had become fully embraced by the Republicans. H.W. Bush was known as an oil tycoon, and it was expected that he could level out the oil prices through his inside knowledge.

----

But then we also need to backup and realize that this isn't a problem exclusive to the White House; the "revolving door" of public appointments and private business has been documented for about 100 years. This isn't a new thing, and in some ways it makes sense to have people familiar with the industry making decisions about an industry. That's a whole other topic though. Anyways, we shouldn't pretend that Trump is an unprecedented nefarious evil about to doom America because he has some business interests. The reality is that a fuckton of politicians at all levels have business interests - many would argue that's not a bad thing.

It's not quite unregulated. It's actually heavily regulated, but the regulations are just stacked against normal citizens.

Take "A corporation is a person". That's a legal concept that is maintained by the government.

Take "I can copyright something". That's a monopoly on ideas which is defended by the government.

Take "You can't photograph my mass farming". Another heavy regulation.

Or take, of course, the bail-outs themselves -- that's a perfect example of government not letting capitalism go its way, but rather, stepping in.

(An interesting book on the subject: The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer. On a related note, by Glenn Greenwald: With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.)

> In the state of nature we have the right to do so, wouldn't you agree?

No. Certainly you can define a concept of rights and justice which holds that to be true, but there are alternative conceptions which hold that it is not just or right for one person to murder another. You've simply assumed that a 'social contract' is the only way to avoid the problems created by the conception of rights you're using.

Here's one alternative some people use: Justice and rights are defined in terms of who may use or exclude others from what rivalrous goods. Those definitions are called 'property rights'. These definitions don't say anything about what kind of society will develop or how disputes would be resolved in practice. It's only a standard for determining what is or isn't 'just'.

Under this conception of justice what is or isn't just is invariant and does not change based on some collectively decided 'social contract.' What social institutions evolve and whether they promote or retard justice is irrelevant to the basic definition of justice.

---

> You know that is how it would be structured; it is like an insurance plan. You pay for certain coverage. The more money you have, the more coverage you can get. By that definition, the homeless could just be outright murdered in the street without repercussion. Jails would not exist.

You might be interested in reading some materials on historical examples of how well various things have worked. For example The not so Wild, Wild West, and David Friedman's Legal Systems Very Different From Ours (Draft) (It's not about a bunch of libertarian systems, but it provides a bit of perspective on different systems).

> My dystopia would be one where different laws apply do different people, and your ability to receive protection depends on your ability to pay.

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

Dont tell the cops ANYTHING. It doesn't matter how fat he is, they're all trained the same way. Don't tell them where you're coming from or where you're going to, it is none of their business and they are looking for reasonable suspicion to search you. These people are not your friend, they exist to throw you in jail and they have been trained to manipulate you into making confessions, especially ones that are false. The same cops that are trying to elicite a confession are the same ones who tell their own family not to talk to the police and there is a reason for this.

Instead, exercise your fifth amendment right: "I wish to use my fifth amendment right to remain silent" "I don't answer questions" "I want to speak to a lawyer", "Am I free to go?" "No, I do not consent to a patdown or to being searched". If they do find something it will be a lot easier to have the charges dropped. If you don't have anything, don't put the ball in their court and ramble because they will find something in what you said to use against you. In some states you dont even have to provide your drivers license/identification unless you are pulled over while driving. This book is short and it is well worth reading because it tells you not only why you shouldn't talk to them but it also includes story after story of what happened to people who talked because they felt they "had nothing to hide". If a police officer asks if you have something to hide, say "No, I have nothing to prove to you. Am I free to go?"

If you can not find the book or afford it, this video will work as a valid substitute.

Last thing: It is legal for the police to lie to you but it is not legal for you to lie to them, this is from a supreme court ruling. The best course of action is again, say nothing other than here is my license and registration. He was trained to ask you about drugs and medication and that it what was used against you, you gave him probable cause to conduct a field sobriety test because he elicted a confession from you. He would have not been able to do this if you refused any questions. Now you see why it is not in your best interest to talk to them. Even though you were innocent and had nothing to hide, you still got busted.

>Also, the state does have to step in when private citizens engage in discrimination - you can see things like racial covenants in real estate or refusal to serve cases for precedent on any of this.

The free market resolves these issues on their own. As it was doing so just fine before the civil rights act and if you look at the job and social trends of African Americans in America leading up to 1964 vs after the civil rights act, you will see.

and the free market will resolve such issues today even more easily with yelp, etc. Businesses acting in horrible ways are only sabotaging themselves. More government intervention is not the solution and more often than not harms the social and economic growth of the minority. Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality by Thomas Sowell goes in more depth on that topic.

>Once again - your belief is totally valid - it's just not the way that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, and they are the ones who decide constitutionality.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but The Supreme Court is not the end all of what the Constitution says. They decide BASED on the constitution what is lawful. There's a distinct difference there. They, like the President, swear on oaths upon taking office to DEFEND the constitution. There has to be some underlying meaning in which to defend. Otherwise you aren't defending anything and we're at complete mercy of the current governmental bodies. Our system should never be "oops we just elected supreme justices that are against the 1st amendment so RIP Free speech. We have the constitution as THE STANDARD for the law in the US and anything not specifically discussed is to be left to the states.

>giving Glenn Greenwald a megaphone to spout his baseless venom however, is wildly unprofessional.

What specifically do you mean by 'baseless venom'?

I've watched his lectures at colleges, his debates on TV amongst the different news stations across the globe and read With Liberty and Justice for Some and not once have I ever thought his arguments were 'baseless' because he provides facts and empirical evidence that can be looked up and verified.

More recently the message he usually conveys is that he wants to shed light on what powerful people are doing in the dark. i.e. The NSA constructing a world wide, indiscriminate spy network that can be used against anyone at the whim of those who control it. Something that was considered wild conspiracy theory only 4 months ago.

How is this a bad thing? To want to inform the public of what powerful people are doing in the dark? To promote the ideal that investigative journalism is one of the main checks to power that we have?

Additionally his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" gives quite a few examples about how there is a very real two tiered justice system dominant in the US. On one side you have the very rich who do not suffer for their crimes against humanity (Cheney/Bush & their false Iraq War, HSBC Laundering Billions for Drug Cartles, etc) and the full weight of the law coming down on petty drug offenses.

I can, however, understand how one would consider the words coming from Greenwald's mouth 'venemous'. His penchant for the truth and his debate skill usually cuts to the bone. Not once have I ever seen him lose a debate. Not once. And while that in and of itself is no indicator of the truthfulness of one's words ( this scene from Thank You For Smoking comes to mind ) it does merit a degree of respect. Especially when you do look up the things he has to say and find out they are rooted in truth.

Compare that with say, someone like Rush Limbaugh or Bill'O'Reily, who seem like divisive demagouges that appear to truly spout baseless venom. Many times when you look up what they have to say it's often half-truth or an outright lie. Twisted words for twisted people with twisted agendas.

Rush and Bill seem to feed off of and appeal to the very worst in humanity - fear, xenophobia, selfishness, greed - I don't see Glenn Greenwald doing the same kinds of things.

Great post. And great comments for the most part too (well some of them anyway). Well done OP. Everyone reading this may be interested in Glenn Greenwald's new book about the "rule of law" in the United States.

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/0805092056

I’m hijacking your comment in the hope it gets seen.

There is a lot of discussion here about what ‘teaching Atheism’ might look like, and since there a few of us who actually do that I thought it might be interesting for people to see what we do.

A good friend of mine teaches at the University of Edinburgh on the subject of non-religion, and in the UK there is also the Non-religion and Secularzation Research Network, the Understanding Unbelief research program at the University of Kent, the International Society of Historians of Atheism Secularism and Humanism, and the International Society for Heresy Studies:

As well, many of us have recently published books on Atheism and non-religion, and there is a growing number of people researching Atheism at the academic level.

Here’s a good short bibliography.

History of Atheism

Atheism and the US Supreme Court

New Atheism

Cambridge Companion

Oxford Handbook

Definitions

Nonreligion

> Do you have a counterpoint example of "thoughtful social justice advocacy" to help me understand the movement better?

No, I really don't. I don't think I understand the movement myself. That's why I find it plausible that there may be stronger arguments for it that we're all missing.

I may take Nathan up on his offer and read one of those books. Eventually. I've been reading too much nonfiction lately, I'm due for a break. :)

But for a very grey-tribe friendly book that does touch on some social justice issues, check out https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577. I liked that book a lot when I read it. However, it's not really a leftist perspective (like, at all.)

Also /u/thisisATHENS, I'd recommend taking a look at Rise of the Warrior Cop - https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 - written by a libertarian dude, so it's not some left-wing look at the police, but it is a fairly comprehensive look at the history of policing in America as well as the rise in militarization and tactics (as well as why those don't work). I certainly don't take it as gospel but it is well researched, well written, and hopefully something that both right and left folks can agree is an issue that should be addressed.

There are so many.

The one I'm embarrassed to not have read yet, but Jordan Peterson recommended that everyone should have read already is Stranger in a Strange Land.

I like the following:

• Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
  
• Fahrenheit 451
  
• Hunger Games
  
  The following is not fiction, but I'm really enjoying and I picked it up yesterday: You Have a Right to Remain Innocent. It's a very short read at only 150 pages, but I think it's something that every ancap needs to read. It talks about the government's justice system and how it operates in regards to the 5th amendment (remaining silent). As anarchists, I think it's important that we are all on the same page in strategies like this.

>I'm not sure if we are there now, but it feels like we have gotten to the point where law and opportunity are not equal for all.

We are there, this book by Glenn Greenwald provides some pretty good concrete examples.

>The whole "ask for a lawyer" business is kind of overstated. The only thing a lawyer will advise you is to not say another word to the police. That's the entirety of the benefit of calling a lawyer. (Also, in circumstances where it's not clear that you've been detained/arrested, the lawyer will instruct you to ask the police if you can leave, and if offered the chance, to do so).
>
>Edit: you should still call a lawyer, because you're always better off with advice tailored to your situation than without it. I'm just pointing out it won't stop the police from asking the questions.

James Duane of the famous Don't Talk to the Police video recommends in his book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent that you should explicitly ask for a lawyer instead of pleading the fifth. He cites a supreme court decision that makes it so the fifth amendment no longer has the protections it used to have. Explicitly stating you want a lawyer and then remaining silent is your best option.

Why do you sound so surprised? It's similar in America. Once you stop talking about "the little people" (i.e. at least 99% of us reading this) it happens frequently.

It's just easier to see it going wrong somewhere else, because all the flag-waving and "for the good of the nation" crap is more transparently-absurd when it isn't your own flag and nation.

• Here in the US, we have politicians who admit (in interviews and memoirs) to behavior which are federal felonies... and also war-crimes (under multiple ratified treaties), yet our political class always just says "It's time to look forward, not back"[2] and sweeps it all under the rug. Virtually every US presidency in the last four decades (including the current one) has vigorously protected the members of the previous one from investigations or prosecutions, anything on the scale from outright pardons to refusal to prosecute to back-room (but still documented) lobbying efforts.
  
  
• Even outside political offices... A wealthy hedge fund manager slams into a bicyclist with his car, and flees the scene, eventually stopping to call for a tow-truck from a Pizza Hut parking lot so that he can get his car secretly repaired. The cyclist, on the other hand, ends up being rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding, spinal injuries that need surgery, and eventually plastic surgery for the scars to his face and body. The manager, meanwhile gets caught by the police, but gets off with a misdemeanor[1] because, in the words of the prosecutor, "felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in [his] profession".
  
  
• Example: Conversely, while that rich guy gets off light (because prosecuting him might interfere with Rich People's Money) there's an unarmed homeless man, who non-violently robbed a bank (with his hand in his pocket to suggest a gun) and who refused to take more than a single $100 bill, giving the rest back to the cashier. He turns himself in the next day and confesses to stealing so he could stay at the detox center, and gets a minimum of 15 years (!) of prison. He'll probably die in there from old age before he gets out, because mandatory minimum sentencing laws prevents the courts from doing much else.
  
  And that's not even touching what the US does to whistle-blowers who try to expose possible criminality within the government.
  
  For a more in-depth investigation of recent examples (and who benefitted from pardoning who, who was punished for whistleblowing,etc.) try: With Liberty and Justice for Some.
  
  ___
  
  [1] For those unfamiliar with US law, most crimes are separated into either misdemeanors (minor crimes of misbehavior, like littering or parking your car where you shouldn't) versus felonies (things which are either "evil" or at least incredibly reckless, like stealing or killing). The distinction between the categories can matter quite a lot in certain situations.
  
  [2] Another variation is "We're not here to seek revenge, we need to focus on keeping it from happening again... like we said last time... and the time before that... and the time before that...."

Depends on your definition of a real thing. When a country has laws that incorporate their treaties into their own law, that's pretty real, in terms of the letter of the law.

It's just that we allow our leaders (or they allow themselves) to break the law, in general, when it suits them. (See With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glenn Greenwald [2011]).

• Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt
  
  
• The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
  
  
• A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  
  
• Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises
  
  
• The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard
  
  
• The Free Market Reader: Essay in the Economics of Liberty, by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, ed.
  
  
• Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman
  
  
• Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
  
  
• The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith
  
  
• The Constitution of Liberty, by F. A. Hayek
  
  
• Basic Economics: A Citizens Guide to the Economy, by Thomas Sowell
  
  
• Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville
  
  
• Anthem, by Ayn Rand
  
  
• A Nation of Sheep, by Andrew P. Napolitano
  
  
• Meltdown, by Thomas E. Woods
  
  
• Liberalism, by Ludwig von Mises
  
  
• A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Ron Paul
  
  
• Rules for Radicals, by Saul Salinsky
  
  
• Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson
  
  
• Liberty Defined, by Ron Paul
  
  
• With Liberty and Justice for Some, by Glenn Greenwald
  
  
• We Who Dared to Say No to War, by Murray Polner and Thomas E. Woods, Eds.

Glenn Greenwald's 2011 book With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful is a very good history of how elites have increasingly escaped the justice reservered for the rest of us.

>The academic article in the link is apparently the first legal history of the Father's Rights Movement, and actually acknowledges the gains the movement made.

You might be interested in


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fathers-Rights-Activism-Comparative-Perspective/dp/1841136298

>The legal status, responsibilities and rights of men who are fathers—married or
unmarried, cohabiting or separated, biological or social in nature—is a topic with
a long and well-documented history. Yet recent developments in a number of
countries suggest a growing politicisation of the relationship between law and father-
hood. In some countries, an increasingly vocal, visible and well-organised fathers’
rights movement has been credited with influencing perceptions of the politics of
family justice. Fathers, it is argued, have become the new victims of family law sys-
tems that have swung ‘too far’ in favour of mothers. Armed with such claims, fathers’
rights activists have set out to achieve a range of legal reforms, most notably in the
areas of child support law and contact and residence rights following separation.
This book presents an attempt to understand these developments. Bringing
together leading international commentators it provides a careful, critical and
comparative analysis of the work of fathers’ rights activists, the role law has played
in their campaigning, their legal strategies, their success (or otherwise) in achieving legal reform, similarities and divergences with the women’s movement, and
the relationship between fathers’ rights movements and the societies that frame
them.

Its an anthology. All the contributors are feminists and from what i remember were very critcal of MRAs/FRAs. But as the summary suggests they do mention many of the achievements of the father's rights movement in many countries (US, UK, Sweden, Canada, Australia). Of course to them the achievements (often) came at the cost of women.

It has been a few years since i last read it, so my memory is a bit hazy, but i do remember thinking that it wasn't as bad as i expected.

OK, look, I must come clean with you:

While I was writing the comment to which you replied, I was sort of psychomagnetically attracted to writing American-style, leaving only that one giveaway "calibre" to hint that I actually am... Australian.

I'm obviously not going to start the Internet's ten-zillionth pointless gun-control argument here, we'd both be better off jamming our thumbs in our eyes... but, for further full-disclosure, I have previously said, while appearing sincere, "Look, you've got to respect their culture. Americans just love shooting each other!" :-)

Right.

Down here, normal Australian cops all have pistols.

But if one of our cops shoots someone, and the shot-person dies, then that will be front-page news nationwide. (Probably even if everyone's still alive.)

Meanwhile in the USA, most, but not all, police departments will disclose how many people their officers have shot in the last year.

I can totally see how better firearms are just better tools for police. I mean, the basic Glock-pistol concept is that it's an automatic that handles like a revolver but is even safer and has more ammo, right? OK, no problem. Or, at least, no new problem. Replacing a cop's truncheon with an expandable baton similarly just gives that cop a handier thing to whack people with, not (generally...) a higher inclination to whack them.

But... a semi-auto 5.56?! Just generally sitting around, for whoever's assigned to this car tonight? In case that weapon seems... necessary?

Are we certain that the threat we're giving these guys a "black gun" to fight is more probable that the chance that a flesh-covered robot from the future will will recover one of the AR-15s and use it to extinguish the progenitors of the human race?

Sorry. No actual argument intended.

This just looks like a big quivering pile of mall-ninjas to me. Yes, police have to deal with incredible bullshit (even super-corrupt police probably have to!), and if I were a cop I'd probably fantasise about just mowing all of those fuckin' morons down with a crew-served weapon which besides me is served by Playboy Bunnies. But I'd still have three-fifths of bugger-all chance of ever being better off, actually, because I carried a pistol and AR-whatever, versus carrying a pistol and a juice box.

I think Radley Balko has his shit together regarding this, but I'm not certain.

Because the laws they make are designed to protect the elite, not the people. There was an interesting article I read that talks about how The US is becoming a country with two separate sets of laws, one for the common people and one for the elite.

Glen Greenwald wrote a book on this...

With Liberty and Justice for some

Glenn Greenwald examined this problem very extensively in his latest book, With Liberty and Justice for Some. Basically, he traces this modern-day erosion of the rule of law and two-tier justice system to when Ford pardoned Nixon.

He also outlined the major insights of his book in a 2011 interview with Harper's.

Glenn Greenwald actually wrote a book about this topic, entitled "With Liberty and Justice for Some". Great title..

> The Obama Administration would be prosecuting the Bush Administration for what were essentially public policy decisions. That sets a precedent nobody wants.

Glenn Greenwald did a great job of breaking down this situation in his book, "With Liberty and Justice for Some." link

well it would depend on if rent control is being imposed on unit versus if rent control is being imposed on specific tenants. rent control doesn't determine the price, exactly, it limits how much it can be raised each new lease. the only way the gov't could determine the price is if it socialized housing (so now corporations don't own it / can't dictate it) or if it established public housing with that purpose.

NYC does a mixture of these things, and the people that get pushed out are mostly the middle class. NYC has public housing (think section 8), but you have to make less than X amount to qualify. NYC has other forms of public housing for lower-middle income families, but they are very hard to get apts from; too many people applying. NYC has rent control on certain buildings that are not public housing, but it's by tenant. So for example, an old lady who got her 2 bedroom apt in the West Village (now an expensive area) in the 1950's would be paying about $250 a month today after rent control increases on her original rent. If she dies or moves out the next tenant is going to be charged ~$3,000 if not more. Because the discrepancy between current market prices and rent controls set over 50 years ago, landlords sometimes hike up the prices for new tenants to make up for loses on rent controlled ones. However, no one's lease renewal can exceed a certain amount rent increase each year in NYC to stop landlords from pushing out old tenants for new wealthy ones. If you want more info, I suggest reading Tenant Power.

NYC is flawed, but there are things in place to protect existing tenants. If you lived in NYC your whole life, moved away a year and came back, you're totally priced out of your hometown.

In my opinion, if Cork and Dublin want to do it right, they need to rent control units across the board. They should probably create new public housing. If they want to feed the market, keep the capitalist sys going, they could allow permits to developers to build luxury buildings without rent control for the rich. I'm not into class divide, but at least in that sys, low to middle income people will have options and not be pushed out of their homes.

It's not complex, it's very simple: the powerful and rich have gotten away with crimes for the past decades (to just cover recent history). Here's a great read on the subject.

Four good ones:

The Art of the Deal by Donald Trump & Tony Schwartz
How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
The Big Short by Michael Lewis
With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glen Greenwald

Two shitty ones (edit: yet still important to read):

The Rage Against God by Peter Hitchens
The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens

Wow. The system is the problem, not officers working within the system.

If you are passionate about this and have time, please read "rise of the warrior cop" by balko. Very interesting read on how as a society we've come to allow and expect this of our police.

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

Wow. Your argument really sounded interesting until you started to apply a sort of a vulgar-psychoanalysis to me. Perhaps you are that self-righteous kind of type who desperately wants to see himself as more compassionate, more enlightened than others? As there are two possible approaches to this whole thing, 1) to actually try to solve some problems 2) to appear to be sensitive and caring. And talking about "reprehensible prejudices" as a shoot in the dark is kinda the badge of the 2) approach.

Oh BTW feel free to ignore stuff like:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0688062695/qid=1080590332/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8721379-3476654?v=glance&s=books

>Would this also bring up the case as to. Wether or not we have two different systems of justice in the United States: one for the regular common folk and another for the wealthy elite.

Award-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald actually recently published a book on this subject, titled With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.

Here's how I understand it, also a senior econ major who spends too much time on /truereddit and no time watching tv news.

The bottom 99%: Many of the protestors are recent college graduates who have spent the last few years trying and failing to get jobs in their majors. There are many people who have graduated with decent grades and decent resumes, taken out tens of thousands of dollars of student loans and now have to take retail jobs because there just aren't enough jobs in the market. Read around at http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ to get a better idea of people's individual situations. Large factions in government (particularly the growing far-right voice in republicanism) have been cutting unemployment insurance, anything meaningful in the healthcare bill, and money toward non-profits.

The Top 1%: Meanwhile, the top 1% are taking ever more for themselves. These graphs show the growing disparity better than I could. Meanwhile, they've heavily lobbied congress, changed regulations to give more freedom to large corporations and make entering markets more difficult, have avoided any criminal prosecutions despite numerous acknowledged accounts of theft, lying to consumers about risk, and lying to regulatory bodies about what they were doing. C-level executives breaking the law, affecting millions of dollars and lives, face no criminal penalties but 4% of Americans have been imprisoned, mostly for petty crimes and drug use. And now that corporations have personhood, as upheld by the supreme court case Citizens United Vs. FEC, corporations are donating massive amounts to influence elections and elected representatives. This has caused both parties to give more weight to corporate interests than ever before in American history while simultaneously cutting benefits and safety nets for the bottom 46%.

Issues with Obama: Obama ran on a campaign for change of corporate interest in politics and stronger enforcement of equality under the law. But under him, the banks had record profits after a misguided bailout, regulation continued to be uprooted, no criminal charges were filed, and almost all the major relief programs had their budgets cut. People felt betrayed.

The OWS campers: So back to OWS - the people camping out are the front lines. Many are unemployed, some are homeless, some are just really grumpy. They are not the voice of the movement, but the base of it. The media has mostly gotten their kicks by playing this "neutral" reporting angle, where they interview the front liners and decide that everyone is just complaining and uneducated. The people at the front lines do a have a wide range of complaints - they believe the political system is broken. Issues include corporate personhood, lobbyist influence, block party voting, lack of interest in citizen issues (online voting questions), the never ending wars, legalization of marijuana, student loans, healthcare, gun control laws, and everything in between. At the front lines, people are just disgruntled. But as a whole movement, the first few are representative of the main requests for change.

What OWS wants: To date, the movement hasn't asked for anything direct or specific action. That enables the mainstream media to simplify the movement. But no law by entrenched politicians can change a culture of listening to CEO interests over worker interests, of accepting huge donations in return for lowered regulations. Right now, OWS is trying to raise awareness of this disparity of wealth and interests - it's difficult for anyone not directly impacted to really feel.

Tl;dr Most Americans have seen their benefits and job opportunities cut while the government has allocated more and more to the top 1%. The people camping out and protesting are the base of the movement, but they aren't a very eloquent voice for it. The biggest issues that OWS is seeking to change are overturning corporate personhood and equality under the law between rich and poor.


Further viewing:
Book: Glenn Greenwald’s With Liberty and Justice for Some - How Rule of Law no longer applies – the political and financial elite aren’t criminally liable for their actions, and poor drug users are more likely to face crippling criminal penalties than ever before.
Video: Inside the Accountants Handbook – a 3 minute video of how corporations don’t pay taxes

I don't believe that incarcerating people as we do actually achieves a safer or better society. I think the war on drugs is a costly sham that infringes on everyone's ability to live in a free country. White lawbreakers, especially drug users, get away with more in my experience than do nonwhites. These are the three arguments that rang true for me in her book, despite blathering on for pages and pages about details that I have no way to verify the truth of, like federal sentencing laws about powdered cocaine versus crack.

We lock up so many damn people. It's not because US people are born more criminal than people elsewhere, I don't think. Something about the "land of the free" having the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world is fucked up: I'm pretty sure you and I would come to an agreement about that, even if nothing else.

What did you think of Rise of the Warrior Cop, which came out at about the same time?

Great book on the subject by Glenn Greenwald:

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

Those of you concerned about the Sheriff's stance on this legal mattermay be interested in Glenn Greenwald's new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some.

The PATRIOT Act is no where near as controversial as people think. The popular opinion is that it gives intelligence and investigatory agencies vast unchecked powers, and that there clearly must be a trade-off between security and privacy.
A quick, informative, easy read was published by the American Bar Association in 2005 where "controversial" sections of the Act were debated by lawyers. Two lawyers would each lay out their legal reasoning for or against the provision, and then try to tear apart the other's essay (again using actual legal reasoning). Many times they actually agree and only call for small changes to certain provisions.
Patriot Debates by ABA
Most of what people know about the PATRIOT Act is myth. Easily worth the $15 and couple hours to read this book and educate yourself on what parts (if any) of the Act are unconstitutional. The debates between the lawyers give you all the ammo you need to make up your own mind and back it up with real facts about case law, protections, and safeguards built into the Act. Many smart people disagree with sections of the PATRIOT Act, but none of them simply say, "because they can call anyone they don't like a terrorist."

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805092056/ref=asc_df_08050920561823493?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=asn&creative=395093&creativeASIN=0805092056

using something "society" wants as enough impetuous to force everyone to pay for it is dangerous.

For example, the USA seems to be at war all over the world, for very bad reasons.

I wish I could opt out of paying for the military. If the government had no funds to make payroll, we'd make very different foreign policy decisions, very quickly.

Re: the justice system - it DOES serve those with money already. Just instead of paying for the courts directly, people with money pay a lawyer who can usually get them a tolerable outcome.

If you don't have money (and sometimes if you do) you still get ground under the heavy hand of "justice".

Very, very little criminal justice activity is regular small-crimes prosecution (like robbery). It's not lucrative enough to justify the police spending their time on it.

I recommend Three Felonies A Day for a better dig into courts.

Another good read is Rise of the Warrior Cop.

Also, full disclosure, the way the courts should function is great! I love what their goal is. But the way they do function is often such a gross perversion of justice it makes me think that a private courts system would do it better, if no other reason then it couldn't be so over-the-top predatory.

If you want an even stranger read, check out Market for Liberty. The authors sketch out what a private courts and police system might look like.

Yes, when it involves very rich people or people who work in or own large banks. What's the saying: The easiest way to rob a bank is to own one?

Here are two books which should look good in your paper:

1. Matt Taibi:
   http://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-Injustice-Age-Wealth/dp/081299342X/ref=la_B001JRUQ4S_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411418868&sr=1-1
   
   
2. Glenn Greenwald:
   
   http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/1250013836/ref=sr_1_sc_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1411418918&sr=1-2-spell&keywords=glenn+greendwald
   
   Both books deal with how prosecutions these days are not being done if you are rich enough and powerful enough. My favorite statistic is the number of bankers that liberal Ronald Reagan's DOJ put in jail during the S and L crisis of the 80s' (thouands? 1,800?) versus Barak's prosecution of NOBODY, basically, in the large banks. And, worse, DOJ admitting, yeah, we're not prosecuting them. HSBC money launders for Al Queda and drug lords. No problem. Civil or criminal fine is enough. No jailtime for anyone.
   
   DOJ had a press conference and Holder admitted, yeah, we're not going to prosecute big banks because they're too big, we'd worry about the impact. Huh what? That's something truly new and worthy of your attention. More sources:
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html
   
   http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214
   

Of course if you haven't already watched it, definitely check out Fahrenheit 9/11 (documentary) by Michael Moore. I think he is awesome at movies, and you should find out a lot of the information you're looking for in this movie. There's a number of other documentaries, but I haven't watched them. Books you might find useful: How Patriotic is the Patriot Act by Amitai Etzioni & Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy by Susan N. Herman. You can also find a lot of relevant journal articles, I recommend searching through Google Scholar with some of your keywords. For example, How about a Little Perspective: The USA Patriot Act and the Uses and Abuses of History by Jeff Breinholt from the 2004 Texas Review of Law and Politics. Good Luck!

Two terrific books on the subject:

• With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful (Glenn Greenwald)
  http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful-ebook/dp/B00603PI3U/
  
• Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It (Lawrence Lessig)
  http://www.amazon.com/Republic-Lost-Money-Corrupts-Congress--/dp/0446576441/
  
  Obligatory link to Wolf PAC: http://www.wolf-pac.com

The guy in that video wrote a book about not talking to police as well. It's not very long and it's pretty good.

I love me some Radley Balko. I highly recommend his book.

First? Holy shit, you are just an amazing human being.

Well, here's my genius plan.

I bought my books already and planned on panicking and hurting for money until I could refill my coffers by some source of miracles. I overheard someone in class talking about Reddit, and then decided to search Reddit for said miracles.

The books I needed are here:

1. Raising the Bar: Ruth Bader - bought from school for $23 because I needed them today. Thanks, professor, for not releasing your motherfucking syllabus until the first day of class.
   
   
2. Sandra Day O'Connor biography Same situation as above, I bought this one at school for $13 because my professor didn't release her syllabus.
   
   
3. A criminology loose-leaf put together by my professor only available from the UCI bookstore. = $67
   
   
4. Constitutional Legal Rights of Women - rented for $61 ....it was $70 to rent at school. Fucking ridiculous.
   
   
5. American Corrections textbook rented for $41
   
   I have one more class that still doesn't even have an instructor listed. It starts on Tuesday, and will also require 2-3 textbooks depending on which professor takes it over.
   
   I did some quick math and have spent $202 in books and supplies like paper so far.
   
   So all of those have been purchased, and I am now sitting in the wake of an empty bank account and a growing credit card charge. It's okay though..money is fluid and something can always work out if you allow it to.
   
   

So what will it take for a statist like yourself to wake up to the reality of the police state you live in... Tanks down mainstreet because that happens as well?

Or is there nothing the police can do you will not apologize way for them

Allow me to Recommend a Book to you that might change are views on Modern Policing

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

I would also highly recommend Radley Balko's deep dive into this very issue:
Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610394577/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_S6kPzbMMRCNJM
It's a great read.

[Glenn Greenwald - With liberty and justice for some. ] (http://www.amazon.com/With-Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality/dp/0805092056)

"With Liberty and Justice for Some"

Probably Radley Balko. He keeps a close eye out on cases like this and has just released a book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces, concerning this subject.

I am currently reading it and it is enlightening.

Amazon link
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374411799&sr=1-1

This is probably the most important video in the world, and more people need to see it. James Duane, the guy giving the talk, also wrote a book on the subject, which I can highly recommend:

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393/

>[Citation needed.] That sounds like a huge generalization, across a country with hundreds, if not thousands of diverse departments.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

>Honor for whom? De Blasio, with his anti-police rhetoric and white guilt appeasement, has thrown police under the bus and blames them for actions outside of polices' control.

Honor for the the democratically elected civilian official who oversees them. I don't give a fuck what you think of Obama, but a soldier should not turn his back on the President of the United States. We're a republic, not a junta.

You might be interested in this book, What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said, where a "court" of nine legal scholars write opinions that they felt better expressed the rationale the court should have adopted rather than what it did say.

I'd recommend checking this thread.

• https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/47xkz1/hrc_email_release_megathread/
  
  There are numerous emails with B1 designations and plenty of redacting. It should have all the information you need. So it's clear that she has sent and received information deemed classified.
  
  I would also recommend you check out these links for precedence on government action on similar cases.
  
  
• Indyk was stripped of his security clearance Sept. 21 after the FBI began investigating allegations that he used an unclassified laptop computer on an airplane flight to prepare classified memos about his meetings with foreign leaders.
  
  
• The Central Intelligence Agency announced today that it had suspended the security clearance of its former Director, John M. Deutch, after concluding that as Director he had improperly handled national secrets on a desktop computer at his home.
  
  
• A U.S. Justice Department official is recommending that criminal charges be brought against former CIA director John Deutch for mishandling secrets on his home computer, government officials said today.
  
  
• After a meandering five-year investigation, Dr. Lee was incarcerated and interrogated, shackled and polygraphed, and all but threatened with execution by a federal agent for not admitting spying. But prosecutors were never able to connect him to espionage. They discovered that he had downloaded a mountain of classified weapons information, but he was freed last September after pleading guilty to one felony count of mishandling secrets. Ultimately, the case of Wen Ho Lee was a spy story in which the most tantalizing mystery was whether the central character ever was a spy.
  
  There is clearly precedence here for action against Clinton. But I believe Glenn Greenwald sums it up best, we have a Two Tier Justice System. And here I thought we were a nation of laws.

He already wrote that book.

'With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used To Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful'


I am sure Dick Cheney is mentioned once or twice. He was already well aware of the Dick's crimes when he wrote it.

There is an incredibly good book that answers that question and gives a full background on the reasoning. It's called Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. I highly recommend it.

Feel free to find a recent video of a German police stop that went anything like that.

Meanwhile, I can find about three hundred US stops that went like that.

It's not the gun ownership or the armed populace. It's the Rise of the Warrior Cop.

This is a good video I watched a while back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

It's obviously for American law, but interesting.
While googling for it I found this article by vice: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/law-professor-police-interrogation-law-constitution-survival

The guy has apparently also written a book: https://www.amazon.ca/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

Any Canadian lawyers know if this is mostly applicable to Canadian law?

We are living a trend of police militarization. Here's a good popular book about it.

A book recommendation on a sad day for democracy:
>With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

>- Glenn Greenwald

https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/1250013836

"police have a financial incentive to focus on drugs. Federal grant programs, such as the Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, reward local and state police for the number of people they arrest."

http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/thousands-rapists-are-not-behind-bars-because-cops-focus-marijuana-users


You are severely misinformed. You are citing anecdotal evidence from 'court in a big city.' AND the statistics you provided only show one crime, the problem is much larger, as I said.

Pick up a copy of this book from conservative writer Radley Balko and you will quickly change your stance. I promise.

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

That's it in a nutshell. Some more general background is in this great book.

There are plenty of pro-life liberals. I'm one! In Catholic and (some) mainline Christian teaching, being pro-life goes right along with being anti-war, pro-gun control, pro-universal healthcare, pro-worker, pro-environment, and anti-death penalty. "Consistent ethic of life" or "seamless garment" is the way it's usually phrased.

Abortion didn't become a single-issue indicator until the evangelical Religious Right of the 80s made it so. To keep it so is to allow the Religious Right to have their way. Contraception didn't become a single-issue indicator for evangelicals until 2010, when suddenly the winds shifted and evangelicals had always opposed contraception for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with having a black President.

I am willing to vote for Democrats on the other issues, since it's easier to work with Democrats on prenatal issues than to work with Republicans on those other issues.

As far as guns go, this is a good book on the subject, despite the straight up kooky-dooks reviews.

This is, on its face, typical cronyism. Bolick is a right-wing extremist even compared to right-wing extremists, and he uses his position as vice president of lititgation for the far-right Goldwater Institute to bully, harass, and legally vex anyone they disagree with. He holds your typical radical-right views, including championing the defunding of public schools in the name of vouchers for more easily-controlled private schools; the gradual devolution and destruction of government, including at the local level, in the name of private interest; the end of affirmative action; and last, but not least, the general libertarian ideal of capitalism as the meaning of life.

Did I mention he has no judicial experience whatsoever?

You guys got a nice back-and-forth going here, but I'd just like to interject with a book recommendation on the history of police: Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko (https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577).

It's a well researched and footnoted book - the author explains that police as we know them are a surprisingly recent development. Mostly affirming the info in the links shared by u/Gilgong0. What I found interesting is 1) we as people only started having police when people started living close to strangers in larger cities (because before that your family and church members just shamed you and/or physically dealt with you if needed) and 2) there is not technically a constitutional basis for police (but no one is making a serious argument they shouldn't exist)

He has a book "You Have The Right To Remain Innocent." Excellent, except as you read it, you'll hear his voice in your head the whole time.

For those who read, this is an excellent resource

They haven't. At least one that got a lot of attention was a no-knock warranty (which I'm strongly against) on a former military man who was growing (and selling?) marijuana. I believe an officer was shot and killed in that exchange, as well as the man who the warrant was served against. Frankly, I think that story is better suited to this sub than this one.

As a result this bill has been put forward to curb no knock warrants. I don't think no-knock warrants should exist, and that existing "knock" warrants should have restrictions put in place to ensure they stop looking more and more like no-knock warrants.

Over militarization of police is a valid concern that should be addressed, but I don't think Dillon's story is a good example of it. Radley Balko addresses the problem well. It's not a simple problem and there are a lot of parts to it.

That type of statement makes you look suspicious and uncooperative.

Nobody should talk to the police. If you do have to, give a very brief statement. Something like "that guy was doing X(reason you killed him), I had to protect myself and my family. I'll be happy to cooperate further after I speak to my lawyer, but I won't answer anymore questions right now"

Quite frankly, everyone should respectfully invoke their 5th Amendment right any time the police want to question you more than about what you're doing right here, right now, and who you are. Other than that, you should have a lawyer. Even if you didnt just shoot someone in self defense. You never know what a detective will try to pin on you after twisting your words or asking leading questions.

EDIT: Everyone should also read this book. Whether you carry a gun or not:
https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

The militarization of the police force in the United States has been an ongoing issue for years, not really sure how you can pin that on Trump. If you are curious, Radley Balko released a book about this in 2014 (Amazon).

Radley Balko -- once a reporter at libertarian website Reason, now at the Washington Post -- has owned this beat for over a decade now. Read Rise of the Warrior Cop if you're interested in learning more.

[Glenn Greenwald (the main reporter of Snowden docs & person who showed Clapper was lying) actually wrote a book on how, under the US justice system, there are 2 tiers -- one for elites (who don't get punished) and one for everyone else.] (http://www.amazon.com/With-Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality/dp/1250013836/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1395250203&sr=8-3&keywords=greenwald)

I read Glen Greenwald's With Liberty and Justice for Some and Matt Taibii's The Divide back-to-back this year. The raison d'être of the law has changed from ideas and needs springing from the philosophy of justice into a weapon to maintain the status quo, something cruel and indifferent.

Ever read the book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko?


It is a good book to read. I recommened it.
Rise of the Warrior Cop

James Duane's Book on this topic, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, is also a very good short read.

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

>You're referring to civil forfeiture of crime-related assets. That can only happen when a crime has occurred.

Rather than catalogue the hundreds of thousands of times assets have been seized and forfeited on mere suspicion of connection to drug activity, I'll just refer you to these articles and one Radley Balko who has made his living, in part, by detailing the massive amounts of money stolen through civil asset forfeiture.

Balko began writing on forfeiture when he worked at Reason, continued when he moved to HuffPo, and wrote a little book on why, exactly, it is in the best interest of police departments to steal, via civil asset forfeiture. You might have heard of it...it's gotten massive international attention for the last year or so.

tl;dr: Anyone who thinks civil asset forfeiture can only happen when a crime occurs has been living under a rock for the last 50 years.

> authorized a variety of actions that had no pretense of law

Retroactive immunity? Check.
Pardoning of lawbreakers? Check.
Widening of laws to make legal what wasn't? Check.
Criminializing those who talk about this? Check.

Now guess which country I'm talking about...

Surplus military hardware that is sold to local police. Here's an interesting book on the subject.

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko may be interesting reading for you.

TIP:

Watch Law Professor James Duane's lecture on Never Talking to The Police.

Then, go buy his book.

Yes, that's a LAW PROFESSOR telling LAW STUDENTS why you shouldn't speak to the police.

The live demonstrations alone are worth the lecture.

[I'm not sure about that mate.] (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ) American PD's look more to me like standing armies every day.

Well if the police do happen to speak to you, only say “I want a lawyer” https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1503933393/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_SNTXzb7V6S4T8

There is a novel Rise of the Warrior Cop
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610394577/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_Sf0gAbD5F595C

I was offering the link simply as a means to link to the text itself; and not as an endorsement of the reviews on GoodReads (which I know nothing of their authenticity)

I prefer to read books myself rather than leave it to someone else to decide for me if I ought to read a book or what opinion I ought to have on a particular book

If you prefer I different link to the text that you may find more palatable (or not)
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

There is a study out there somewhere, I’ll try and find it and link it, which shows the cops are generally reluctant to actually use SWAT against armed or aggressive persons but prefer to wait them out. Rather SWAT is disproportionately used when it is an established fact that the target is likely to offer minimal resistance.

*Edit - I couldn’t find the original source I used in my paper years ago but it is referenced in this book which admittedly isn’t the most balanced source.

I think you'd find this a suitable reference. It's also highly recommended reading.

@Radley Balko

Why didn't you supply a link to Amazon?

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373483483&sr=1-1

They assert why it happens, they have yet to support the why.

That the individual just wasn't as well liked as the other interviewees.

You've cited zero objective evidence other then to point to other who make the same assertion without any support.

Incorrect. The discrepancy only exists when you compare all women with all men. Again when comparing equally prepared individuals, in the same job of opposite gender the discrepancy not only vanishes but in many cases women end up ahead.

http://smile.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695?sa-no-redirect=1

Karsh

Since you obviously didn't read the article, here's a TL;DR:

"Baton Rouge PD looks ridiculous. I never wore so much armor in combat."

Example 1.

Example 2.

Example 3. Titled "This isn't Baghdad."

In case you still aren't convinced, here's an excellent summary of the militarization of police in America. It's a phenomenon detailed in a book called "Rise of the Warrior Cop" and the first sentence of the Amazon page is "The last days of colonialism taught America’s revolutionaries that soldiers in the streets bring conflict and tyranny."

Use of SWAT for situations that don't require it, and are a mere excuse to keep the 'team'? Balko wrote a book about exactly that.

Glenn Greenwald, who reported the Edward Snowden revelations, argues that this decision set the precedent for the powerful in the U.S. publicly and unapologetically declaring that the law applies differently to them then it does to the masses.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/1250013836

Read this. I just finished it and it is eye-opening.

The gist of it is that there are federal grants handed to localities to purchase these types of things. Why not take the government's money and buy a cool as hell toy like this?

read this "Rise of the warrior cop"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/21/verbal-judo-police-shootings-deescalation-communication

Also: https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

There's a decent book on it:
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1397130720&sr=8-1&keywords=rise+of+the+warrior+cop

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

you read this?

You really need to read some history and educate yourself on the realities of militarized policing and the treatment of black Americans.

Here are some suggestions where you can get started:

https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Another-Name-Re-Enslavement-Americans/dp/0385722702

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=37DDCSH6HQ7WTMAV25ZF

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ

Title refers to the famous book of the same name:

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

You can read much more of the formation of the first swat teams in Radley Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop". Highly suggested reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1494734957&sr=8-1&keywords=rise+of+the+warrior+cop

Also read Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop."

Edit: Adding link to the book - https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?

And

Basic Economics

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

Radley Balko summed it up:

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces

Published 6 years ago, but still relevant today:

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

Radley Balko's Rise of the Warrior Cop.

in that case, http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

Highly recommend

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393/ref=sr_1_1?crid=G82I6PWOOJ79&keywords=right+to+remain+innocent&qid=1572472514&sprefix=right+to+remain+in%2Caps%2C-1&sr=8-1

You guys should read this Radley Balko book from 2013.

Non-mobile: Rise of the Warrior Cop

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?

Recommended (and fascinating) reading.

Check out the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko. The no-knock raid is a HUGE departure from how warrants have been served for hundreds of years. In fact, the British used similar tactics briefly and it was seen as such an infringement on rights that it was cited as a cause for the American Revolution.
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

It's true, you can find wiki articles cataloguing hundreds, perhaps thousands of officer-involve shootings.

Radley Balko has written a few books on this subject, they're worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1411913115&sr=1-1-catcorr

Without revealing too much, I have had a death in my family as a result of such an incident...

It's more like the girlfriend who kept cheating on you over the years with different people is now being caught doing an orgy on webcam.

History repeats itself if we don't prosecute criminals.

Companies made up of criminals, in this case. Who else do you think actually commits the crimes?

Of course, the Obama administration also directly grants immunity to single criminals:

"In court papers filed today ... the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-doj-asks-court-to-grant-immunity-to-george-w-bush-for-iraq-war/5346637

These aren't singular "looking forward in a spirit of forgiveness" cases, as politicians like to present them. These are actions which help future crimes, as everyone gets the message that with a high enough standing, no court can hurt you. This follows a pattern going back to not just the pardoned Nixon. Glenn Greenwald, who works with whistleblower Snowden, wrote an excellent book on the subject.

> Wouldn't that defeat the entire point of the fifth?

"The Department of Justice has now served official notice that it believes the courts should allow a prosecutor to argue under any circumstances that your willingness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege can and should be used against you as evidence of your guilt." That's from James Duane's book. He's the "never talk to the police" attorney.

Further, Salinas V. Texas really fucked things up for everyone by establishing that "...the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause does not protect a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights."

So, yes, unfortunately, taking the 5th can indeed be used as evidence of your guilt—especially in civil matters, or in a deposition where you haven't been arrested and Mirandized.

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

They'll never allow books like that in there.

And sometimes it isn't "murder" if there are mitigating circumstances. We have many different charges based on lots of different factors and scenarios. He could be screwed up mentally and not been properly evaluated. I think it is obvious he had incredibly shitty legal representation. I didn't say him killing them was the correct thing to do or that he shouldn't answer for that in some way. All I said was that I, personally, would refuse to convict him of murder given that he had suffered years of abuse and might face the death penalty.

And, I'm sorry, but you are a fool if you think we have even a passable "justice system." Our "justice system" is nothing of the kind. It is a two tiered system of injustice.

You might benefit from reading this book.

http://www.amazon.com/With-Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality/dp/0805092056

fyi....just passing along something I've read:
https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

You should NEVER talk to the police, especially federal agents.

You should not claim your right to remain silent, but instead exercise your right to a lawyer.

Demand gov't to provide written questions and only answer gov't in written statements

This guy has a book now by the way, with specific advice and case studies. I recommend it for any illegal drug user.

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

No. The first cops were just cops.


https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

> The police force in this town has tripled in the last dozen years. They have also transformed from the approachable servants they are supposed to be into highly militarized and aggressive shitbags.

Somehow this bothers me the most.

Like, honey, the police force in every town in America has tripled in the last dozen years.
They have all become highly militarized and [even more] aggressive.
This has been going on for
quite
some
time.

Where the fuck were you?

I think that's why the USA is a police state instead of totalitarian utopia in that metaphor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/30/does-military-equipment-lead-police-officers-to-be-more-violent-we-did-the-research/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.515653ac2481

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/police-militarization-fails-to-protect-officers-and-targets-black-communities-study-finds

He wrote a follow up book on this subject that basically says you can’t just not talk to police. You have to request a lawyer and only talk to police once your lawyer is present. If I remember correctly in the book he explains there have been some rulings that let them consider complete silence as admission of guilt. Been a while since I read it though so I’m sure I’m missing the nuance.

Edited to add the book https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393/ref=nodl_

> the same problem still exists

Well, we can agree on this. The whole Payday loan market is for suckers who need to take high-risk. On a bigger scale, the scam is how democracy and capitalism actually works in the US (hint: it's an oligarchy, not a real democracy). I feel like Scott Tucker isn't even the biggest fish to fry, but the biggest fish have so much money & power, they're above the law.

I recently started reading Radley Balko's "Rise of the warrior cop". If you haven't read it yet I really suggest it: https://www.amazon.ca/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

It's a really in-depth look at how our Police forces became so Militarized over the last few decades.
I think head shots at protestors is a garbage move on their part, even if it is their training. that just bullying mentality paired with firepower.

This woman makes me livid... my blood boils, once more.

I wonder which wrist they'll slap

> "Nadia recognizes her error, and she intends to take all appropriate action to regain her health."

Bullshit. Wasn't that from last time's?

http://www.nbc12.com/story/26065815/portsmouth-man-charged-for-firing-on-cops-who-entered-wrong-home <-- this man was found innoncent after all said and done

http://rt.com/usa/181100-baby-swat-grenade-medical/ <-- this one is made famous where a stun grenade injured the wrong child

Those are a couple of examples of it. There are 100s if not 1000s of other articles out there but at the time I cannot possible pull them all up for you.

For some good read, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1408385419&sr=1-1&keywords=rise+of+the+warrior+cop

It goes into details of exactly what is wrong. Again nobody is arguing that the police should be armed or that they should gain access to equipment, but the problem is how they are using it as oppose to anything else.

The book I'm reading right now: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas-ebook/dp/B00B3M3UFQ

There's been a huge proliferation of military equipment, which is used in no-knock SWAT raids against suspected drug dealers, or sometimes even doctors suspected of over-prescribing painkillers, sometimes based on bad tips or sometimes simply at the wrong address.

Sadly, until very recently Obama hadn't really done anything to stifle this, and it's arguable that he actually advanced it. Joe Biden has been doing so for longer than he's been vice president.

This story has two important points: 1. Texas justice is completely fucked up and 2. Police and prosecutors often act in ways that callously disregard the rights of others, yet they are rarely held accountable for their own criminal acts. The numerous videos of innocent people being shot by cops that've surfaced in the last several years demonstrate the problems in police departments.

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces is good further reading on these topics. So is Three Felonies a Day. Almost no one is safe—not even victims.

And why is that, you don't think it's a thing? You think people can just write bestselling books about the phenomenon using a lot of hot air? I admit some parts of the book are so over the top I have a hard time believing them myself:

> In all, thirteen California counties were invaded by choppers, some of them blaring Wagner’s "Ride of the Valkyries" as they dropped Guardsmen and law enforcement officers armed with automatic weapons, sandviks, and machetes into the fields of California.

But then I read articles like this one published today all about the overuse of flashbangs by police. One of the vignettes was about a lady who got no-knock raided for selling "a plate of food and six cans of beer without a license." Sounds like a good use of deadly force, a SWAT team and taxpayer dollars to me. /s And of course the article repeated that sickening story about the baby who was badly maimed - almost died - from a flashbang going off in its crib during a raid where the perp wasn't even there. Little guy had to be put in a medically-induced coma for over a month, has already racked up over $1M in medical bills, and will have to have reconstructive surgery every 2 years until he turns 20.

Of course those are just a couple anecdotes. Look into the stats for yourself on the rise and overuse of SWAT units and no-knock raids and see that its a systemic problem. Fact is there is a sizable segment of modern police who like to dress up and play soldier, and the federal gov't subsidizing surplus weapons of war does not help the situation.

Did you watch the video? I watch it about twice a year, and i have his follow-up book on my phone’s kindle app.

https://www.amazon.com/You-Have-Right-Remain-Innocent/dp/1503933393

The book’s big takeaway is you should assert your 6TH amendment rights, vice pleading the fifth, because the 6th gets you your lawyer before the cops can ask you questions, and your lawyer tells you to shutup. Too many people have it in their mind that asserting your fifth amendment rights against self incrimination is something that only a guilty person would do, and saying the sixth doesnt have that widespread perception (yet).



If you didnt watch the video. Watch it.

Imagine you had an ex who lived in the next neighborhood over, and they died. The cops talk to you because the ex is always the one who did it, but you didnt, so you answer their questions to clear your name. When they ask if you were in that neighborhood, you say “i’ve not been their for YEARS!” but the cops already have a witness who says they saw someone who looks like you with a car like yours creepin around that neighborhood on the day of the murder. You get hauled in front of a jury, and a cop and a witness say you were there, and you look like a dirty liar and risk going to jail, whereas if you HADNT said anything, the cops would have a random witness and nothing about you being a dirty liar.

Worth watching the full thing.

More than once on this sub, I've cited the book Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police. It's a bit lengthy, and covers the historical foundation of the Bill of Rights (great read if you're an American history student).

But the real takeaway is that SWAT teams bring their own exigency with them. "Exigency" is just a fancy word for urgent and unexpected circumstances that allow SWAT teams to improvise and shoot dogs and kick in doors and operate without a judge's oversight. But the book makes a compelling argument that SWAT teams create exigency, they create violence where none existed before, they create dangerous situations where none existed before.

What if there are hostages inside a bank during a botched robbery? Sure, send in SWAT. But a house where no one is in any danger? Or a house where no one is threatening anyone? Hey, what if someone is suspected of cock fighting? Just have a celebrity drive a SWAT tank into their house. WCGW?

We have to make the government's actions public and keep our private lives private. It's terrifying to see what Glenn Greenwald uncovered: http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Justice-Some-Equality-Powerful/dp/1250013836

Patriot Act goes too far, FISA courts have no real oversight capacity, the whole thing is a mess.

We have to start by applying the law. If you do something illegal, as the NSA did, as many of these agencies did, there have to be consequences. This is the problem with so much of our system: no consequences. Illegally spy on Americans? No consequence. Illegally kidnap and torture innocent people because you thought they were terrorists? No consequences.

Heck, even Dick Cheney, who was wrong about almost every single thing he did as VP, still gets to go on TV and sell himself as some kind of expert. It's amazing.

When these organizations break the law, someone besides the whistleblower has to go to jail.

I'd be okay with it being banned, but I wouldn't really support it.

Banning something that's not really a problem goes against my personal views. It's like banning assault weapons to stop gun crime, in spite of the fact that killings involving rifles are less than 1% of gun crime. Just stupid feel-good legislation that doesn't do anything to actually combat the problem.

But I'm all for police being on (mostly) the same ground as your average citizen. Much like they are in Britain. Sure, they've got a bunch of buddies, radios, and high-viz vests, but you're not seeing British police shoot black kids all day for wearing a hoodie.

And it really goes back to a mindset. Police in America are in this stupid war-on-cops mindset that they're going to be shot at sometime during their service and need to be on the lookout all the time for the lone gunman who's going to shoot them. That's a completely false narrative that leads to thousands of needless civilian casualties every year. More police die on-the-job of heart attacks and traffic accidents than of violence.

If you ever get bored, this is a pretty good read. Really opens your eyes to what police are nowadays, versus what they're intended to be.