>Here's the thing, though...argument is not sufficient. The God of theists is not a concept or abstraction, he is a concrete reality [that requires physical evidence]

Thanks for another interesting reply.

Your objections seem to relate to the coherence of theism. I would like to recommend The Coherence of Theism by Richard Swinburne. I am not going to give you five screenfuls of argument. I will just note that the objection that science cannot locate the cause of phenomena in unobservable entities or processes goes back to Hume and Kant who both wrote before science had had the success it enjoys today in doing just that.

I also think you may be looking at things with a false physicalistic dichotomy: Either things are made of particles or they don’t exist; that is, I think you are equating incorporeal with nonexistent. But this is precisely what theism refutes. It claims that there can be things which are incorporeal and yet which exist: There are physical substances p and immaterial substances q and substances q are not nothing. Indeed, it claims that these substances are the matrix and substrate of physical reality.

It almost seems to me that you expect to find God somewhere in the universe which, as Peter van Inwagen notes, is a little like trying to find Rembrandt in The Night Watch.

That is why Swinburne’s book, The Coherence of Theism, is a helpful starting place. It discusses all the a priori objections to theism (such as the ones you are making) and so clears the air for the second volume in his trilogy: The Existence of God.

>Only if you abandon the concept of an omnibenevolent God. I cannot see any way to reconcile the violence and suffering inherent into evolutionary processes with the designs of a benevolent being.

I still think the higher order goods solution to the problem of evil is a coherent response to both moral and natural evil. And I think that to appeal to the problem of evil you must adopt a counterexperiential pessimism about life. Yes there is suffering—but life is mostly wonderful for most people. And what suffering there is the higher order goods solution accounts for.

>And my view demonstrates the exact opposite. In fact, of all modern religions, Christianity is the one I'm most convinced is false, as it's the one I know the most about. Christians believe God is good...in fact, the Christian God is the ultimate Form of Good. And yet I would consider a deity that behaved in the way believed by Christian theology to be an objectively evil being. Any father who would sacrifice his own child just to abate his own wrath at a third party cannot, under any moral system I accept, be considered good or even neutral...this is a downright Evil act.

Here it seems to me that you take no real account of how Swinburne spells out the Christian doctrine of atonement since what you say above does not engage with his argument. I can only suggest you take another look. Remember: In Swinburne's argument God lives and suffers in Christ to show solidarity with us in the suffering he allows. The brutal execution is to ensure that he shares in the worst of human suffering and it is the perfect life he lived that is the atonement we offer him. There is also the very substantial evidence for the post mortem appearances of Jesus which makes it, on historical and evidential grounds, the most probably true of all religions.

In any case, if you really have looked at all the arguments and feel that you have satisfied your intellectual obligations and yet remain unconvinced, one final area to explore might be direct religious experience. For example, I notice that you say,

>I understand that people have these experiences, but when it comes down to it, I have not. If I were to accept that your experiences were sufficient evidence for your beliefs, then I would have to also accept that my lack of experience was sufficient evidence for mine, and I don't find either compelling.

However, Swinburne shows that lack of religious experience is not evidence for the nonexistence of God or any reason to think God does not exist,

>If it seems to me that there is present a table in the room, or statue in the garden, then probably there is. But if it seems to me that there is no table in the room, then that is only reason for supposing that there is not, if there are good grounds for supposing that I have looked everywhere in the room and (having eyes in working order, being able to recognize a table when I see one, etc.) would have seen one if there was one there. An atheist’s claim to have had an experience of its seeming to him that there is no God could be evidence that there was no God only if similar restrictions were satisfied.

And he goes on to argue that the only way to do so is to provide a proof of atheism.

You seem to acknowledge this when you say you don't find either compelling. But I think his argument from religious experience provides rational grounds for giving such experiences, especially if they are forceful, evidential worth.

If I were in your position I would undertake a spiritual experiment. In his comparative study of mystical experience, The Perennial Philosophy, Aldous Huxley makes a very interesting claim about God and testability. He says that it is possible for a mind to prove to itself that God exists with scientific exactitude. How?

Huxley suggests that God can be directly known only through mystical experiences insusceptible to rational scrutiny and ordinary sensory perception. A starting point for the ordinary seeker of truth is therefore a provisional faith in the authority of other mystics who, in every culture throughout human history, have proclaimed that God exists. In doing this, Huxley adds that the seeker is not being irrational or unscientific. We put our faith in the regularity of nature and in the authority of qualified experts whose claims we accept without personally verifying them and also in our own working hypotheses, “sufficient to induce us to test our provisional beliefs by means of appropriate action.”

If one is not oneself a sage or saint, the best thing one can do, in the field of metaphysics, is to study the works of those who were. In practical terms, Huxley would have us undertake a study of mystical experience. As we do this, points of commonality emerge. One essential shared criterion is the mortification of the self and a deep meditative focus upon God as the grounding of all being.

How is this scientific? Because it is testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. How testable? Here are the steps to take—try it for yourself. How repeatable? Many have repeated these actions and arrived at the same results. How falsifiable? You can try this experiment yourself and, if it doesn't work, you have falsified it. However, people who have taken these steps have always arrived at the same result. In short: Your honor, I have evidence proving that God exists. I cannot demonstrate this evidence but you can view this evidence yourself if you do x, y, and z.

I have heard of a few now-deeply religious people who began by praying experimentally, “God, I’m seeking you. If you’re there, please reveal yourself to me.”

This turned out to be their, "fatal mistake."

)

When I said "51 onward" I was referring to PrepTest 51 and onward. PrepTest, commonly abbreviated as PT are previously administered LSATs. Every LSAT is released as such, except for those pertaining to the February administration. The most recent PrepTest is number 77, which corresponds to the LSAT that was administered in December of 2015. Each PrepTest contains the four officially scored sections of the LSAT plus the writing sample question, it however does not include the experimental section as this would compromise future LSATs. When you purchase the LSAT PrepTest volumes, you do not receive explanations, only an answer key and percentile conversion chart to each exam. However, the LSAC has released a book called SuperPrep II which includes 3 PrepTests, of which is there not only an answer key, but official explanations to each and every question, explaining why the right answer to each is the, well right answer. Although the LSAC does not have an explanation for all of their PrepTests published, there are many forums, websites and even published books which will do so for you. For example, The Princeton Review will be shortly releasing "LSAT Decoded" which will explain all of the answers in corresponding LSATs(PrepTests) I listed the following books that I purchased and recommend. Go to your local bookstore and read a couple pages of the Prep Company's book and see if their method of teaching works for you, if not, find another. Lastly, I would like to say that it is of absolutely no trouble for myself, I am more than happy to help, and thus I wish you the best of luck in your endeavour! :D

I posted the links to the books I bought and have been enjoying, please take caution before purchasing it from these links, as I posted the Amazon Canadian links as I live in Canada. Anyway, I believe either the Kaplan Premier 2016-2017 or LSAT trainer are an absolute must, although you could get away with not getting a prep company strategy set, I strongly encourage getting at the very least a comprehensive all in one. Any more questions or concerns about anything related to the LSAT please feel free to send me a message/reply.

http://www.amazon.ca/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0986045519/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457253768&sr=8-2&keywords=LSAT

http://www.amazon.ca/Official-LSAT-SuperPrep-II-Champion/dp/0990718689/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1457253768&sr=8-10&keywords=LSAT

http://www.amazon.ca/Actual-Official-PrepTests-Comparative-Reading/dp/0984636005/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1457253768&sr=8-9&keywords=LSAT

http://www.amazon.ca/LSAT-Trainer-remarkable-self-study-self-driven/dp/0989081508/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1457253799&sr=8-3&keywords=LSAT

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1937707784?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1937707776?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0990718697?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0986045543?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00

http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0986086231?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o05_s00

Great questions!

The Self Study package doesn't include any practice test books, but does include copies of our Type Training material which are 20 tests' worth of questions grouped by concept/type. So if you bought the three Type Training books for LR, LG, and RC for PTs 1-20, say, you'd have every question from those exams, although not in individual test form: instead those collections are designed to allow people to focus intensively on singular ideas, like Weaken questions or Science passages or Advanced Linear games, so that you can really drill down on the specific areas giving you trouble. So they're real questions from tests, but not great for taking as full tests, if that makes sense.

Instead, your best bet is to purchase the deeply-discounted (relative to single tests) 10 Actual books that LSAC has released. If you get the two latest editions of those you'll have 20 very recent exams in full, and that'll run you about $45 or so on amazon last I checked. That's far and away the cheapest and easiest manner to buy real tests.

Then our plans themselves reference tests from those collections directly as recommended PTs to take at specified times. We even go so far as to tell which tests to use for the experimental section on five-section PTs! So it's all very clear and orderly once you're in the thick of things :)

Finally, the Workbooks were all designed to correspond exactly with the Bibles, so each Bible chapter will have a supplemental Workbook section devoted to it with tons of drills and exercises and examples to help you perfect the approaches advocated in the Bibles. And again the Study Plans are extremely detailed in how they instruct you to move through the various resource and combine them for maximum effect. It feels like a lot upfront but once you begin working through it with a Plan in hand it starts to fly by...or at least it seems to move more quickly/efficiently than people expect given the volume!

Much of the logic required for the test is shared among sections, so studying for one helps the others. Also, each section tends to require a slow progression because you are basically changing how you think, so a lot of people recommend intertwining the three to some extent.

Logic games are usually the quickest to improve on, so a lot of people start with more of a focus there. This allows you to shape your mind to LSAT faster and can help with the other sections. It also gives you a sense of progress and accomplishment.

Reading comprehension and logical reasoning are basically how well you pay attention to what you read and how you logically connect the provided information, so how fast and to what extent you pick those sections up depends on how well you build those skills. Sometimes that takes days to see drastic improvement (I had a student go from the mid-teens to the mid-twenties on RC in a day because he changed to a more effective approach), but often it takes months (usually because one is just practicing instead of changing what he or she is doing wrong).

First, I recommend that you take a practice test. You can access June 2007 for free. This will help you to determine what needs the most work. You will eventually want to buy at least some of the official preptests (all are good, but newer is more relevant and therefore more important):

• PrepTest 77
  
• PrepTest 76
  
• PrepTest 75
  
• PrepTest 74
  
• PrepTest 73
  
• PrepTest 72
  
• PrepTests 62-71
  
• PrepTests 52-61
  
• PrepTests 29-38
  
• PrepTests 19-28
  
• PrepTests 7, 9-16, 18
  
• 10 Real LSATs Grouped by Question Type: Manhattan LSAT Practice Book
  
  Then, I suggest working with a set of prep books or online lessons. A lot of people like 7Sage, the LSAT Trainer, and PowerScore, but there are other options as well.
  
  Three pieces of advice:
  
  1.) Don't blow through all of your practice tests - even though there are 77 of them - a lot of people who start early tend to run out. That leads to:
  
  2.) Don't take a lot of practice tests early. Your job is not to practice your current (bad) habits; instead, it is to identify what aspects of your approach you are doing wrong and make a conscious effort to fix them. You will get much more out of slow, untimed, exhaustive, reflective study than out of plowing through lots of practice tests expecting something to change. If you are not improving yourself, do not just continue to take practice tests - instead:
  
  3.) Don't be afraid to look into a tutor. An experienced one can usually diagnose issues and sometimes that is more efficient and effective than working through it on your own, especially when you are stuck and struggling to improve. That can be expensive sometimes, but it can also be the reason why you get into your target school and/or the reason why you get a scholarship (my prep, many years ago, paid for itself many times over).
  
  Good luck!

I agree with bl1y.

I'm 3 years practicing with my second law review article getting published in around a month.

My first article topic came by looking at what I experienced as a practitioner every day. Pretty soon I got a feeling that maybe the courts were not applying a rule the way I perceived it should be applied. So, I looked into different cases where I thought the rule was inconsistent or at least not reconcilable. Turns out, there were a bunch.

My second article topic came from regularly reading decisions from the top court in my state. While doing that, I was not looking for a topic, but I did notice a pattern of things that generated dissents or concurrences. The judges almost had a funny way of discussing this topic and it caught my eye. It never occurred to me when reading that this was an article waiting to be written. Instead, it was only after about a year or so of reading cases that the topic gelled as article-worthy when someone asked if I would be interested in writing an article and they were looking for topics. It turned into a ~30-page law review article exploring the topic, history, and those recent decisions.

Not sure if your girlfriend was part of an academic journal in law school, but the idea is the same: anyone can write a case study. Rather, it is the synthesis of various cases and legal rules that adds meaning and broadens literature.

I want to say that I did all my research before I wrote a page. The truth is that writing itself is an organic process. You often need to start a little bit of writing to find more relevant literature.

-----

For me, the idea of finding a topic is like nucleation sites for crystals. For example, see this video of supercooled water. The idea of supercooled water and "instant" ice is that the water is cold enough to be ice, but it needs a place to start. Once it starts, however, the entire bottle of water changes phase. So, you could be ready to write an article, but you still need that spark, the place to start and to build from. That can come from (like the video shows) outside agitation (or impurities but lets not get to heavy into the science).


------

Eugene Volokh has a book called Academic Legal Writing. I found it particularly helpful during law school and still to this day. But I remember it being cheaper back then. In any event, it covers issues from the genesis of ideas to the methodology of good research to better writing.

If you're looking for some good prep work these books all helped me immensely.

1L of a Ride This one was my favorite and I looked at pretty often for my first month of school.

Reading Like a Lawyer

Expert Learning for Law Students

I feel like these three really gave me a good head start to law school. You cover the basic skills you'll be using your first semester (and all of law school, but you can tweak/find your own way after your fall semester). They give you some practice reading and briefing cases, help you figure out what to look for when you're studying and include some helpful tips on how to do well overall. They also include some good life tips of how to stay happy and feel comfortable outside of class.

Where to even begin?

Paul Campos' Don't Go To Law School (Unless) should be required reading for any prospective law student.

But holy shit, the LIES.

So for decades now, law schools have been churning out twice as many lawyers as there are available jobs; obviously, you can't do this forever, but boy do they try.

• At first, they didn't need to release post-BAR employment statistics
  
  
• Then, they made them as misleading as possible (if you were a barista with a law degree, LSAC and ABA considered you employed)
  
  
• If you worked part-time as a cart-pusher, the ABA, for a while, considered you employed
  
  
• 50% of graduated lawyers ended up in a job that didn't require a law degree. LAW SCHOOLS MARKETED THIS AS THE VERSATILITY OF A LAW DEGREE, when in reality grads were just taking gasping for air and taking anything--AND ENDED UP IN JOBS THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN WITHOUT THE DEGREE!
  
  Scholarships aren't what you think they are
  
  
• You have two applying students, A and B
  
  
• A is a genius with really high scores, B would be lucky to get into your institution
  
  
• As the dean, or admissions, indeed your only real job is to increase the ranking of your school ( ^ ranking = ^ prestige = ^ money), or at least not let it flounder. How do you do that? Getting smarter kids to go to your school. Now, 'A' won't go to your school if he can help it--he's got the goods for a Top 14. But you really want him, so you offer him a generous scholarship package.
  
  
• That scholarship doesn't come out of thin air. There is no "Scholarship Vault" in the back of the Dean's office. What they do is make the lower test-score kids pay higher tuition in order to subsidize the smarter kids' tuition and, ultimately, the school's ranking. They're able to do this because a) the federal government will back students' idiotic loan amounts, 2) Student A is getting a bargain, 3) Student B thinks he's getting a bargain when in reality he's just cattle who won't see a worthwhile Return on Investment
  
  Thought grad school, in general, was a "big, cold, system"? Law school is an industrial sized grinder where the only output is marginally better rankings and jobless grads with $250,000 in debt.
  
  Law schools are thirsty whores for any type of validation, which means "rankings" news. Who is the "great decider" of rankings? Mostly US News World Report. Think about that for a second. How much validity do you think the rankings system has when one media organization runs a monopoly on the whole thing? Go try to figure out why one school is #60 while the other is #70. Seriously, go try. Meanwhile, people are reading these rankings like they're scripture.
  
  The Great Usefulness Lie
  
  One of the more recent, and clever, ploys by law schools is to sell law degrees as versatile
  
  > You don't see too many practicing attorneys because law is versatile, they're out doing a million different things, not just practicing law!
  
  No. The chances of you getting that environmental advocacy position is nill. You're not going to practice space law. Want to work for the public good and help the downtrodden? Great. Fantastic. Don't forget about your $250,000 in debt which will begin accruing absurd interest very, very soon. You'll be paying that debt off for half your life... unless you sell your soul and go work for a big firm for 80 hours a week (you'd better hope you graduated from a really good school at the top of your class).
  
  Mental Health
  
  Lawyers are, relatively, quite suicidal. Relatively, they suffer from depression and chronic alcoholism often. They self-report as miserable quite often.
  
  One (of many) white papers
  
  It's not spoken about much but, as someone with a history of depression and alcohol abuse already, I'm not going through this shit. For what? To slave for a firm for 80 hours a week?
  
  
  
  
  

• As a man thinketh - A good starting point to reflect on life situations. This is a quick 35 page read.
  
  
• On Liberty - A classic on the theory of liberty, especially freedom of speech
  
  
• Nicomachean Ethics - Aristotle's book on ethics
  
  
• The Art of Power - This is the best intro book on Buddhist ideas that I've read. The word power in the title doesn't refer to political or monetary power, but instead the power of clear thought.
  
  
• A Theory of Justice - John Rawls theory of justice.
  
  
• Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy: from Thales to Aristotle - This will cover most of the classics of ancient greek philosophy. Best intro to that topic, I've read pretty much everything in there.

> So, if black people choose to remain in the country, they have to abide by how they're treated? What about being poor, if they don't like the country they should move somewhere else?

Don't get what black people have to do with anything. If you want to import irrelevant context to imply something I never said, you're welcome to do it, but you're arguing in bad faith at that point.

The basic point is that to the extent that you and I are citizens (I'll take it to be for the sake of argument you live in the US as do I) of this country, we consent (insofar as we continue to accept and be okay with things, despite whatever reservations we have) to one degree or another to the way things currently are, and we have a say and a share in a wide variety of things, as members:

• We get to participate in the economy.
  
• We are afforded certain protections under the law.
  
• We get to benefit from communal and public enterprises.
  
  And which also includes our right to challenge the status quo (as has been done many times in our history). And you can go down the line as far as you want to, part of which I illustrated to another person a while ago.
  
  > The social contract is the equivalent of saying it's okay for you to beat your wife because she hasn't left you yet.
  
  Contractarianism is a highly sophisticated and nuanced moral philosophy. One that I adhere to with respect to certain tenets. And you hardly do it justice with one sentence that sweeps it under the rug. If you have any actual interest however, I'd start with John Rawls. You know as well as I do that statement is pure nonsense.

Your plan sounds good. Another way to go, which I would recommend slightly over what you have, is to use odd-numbered tests for PT and even-numbered ones for drilling or experimentals (after pulling out maybe the most recent 10-15 strictly for PTs and the oldest 10-15 for experimentals). That way your drilling has the same variety (caused by age of test) that your PTs have. The result, if done well, is a very flexible mastery of the test.

I think it's better not to buy books of questions broken down by types, honestly. Identifying the question type is a crucial skill, so if you want to drill by types (which you should early on), make the type lists yourself.

You might consider 19-28 for the experimental set-aside (https://www.amazon.com/More-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305039), but you should definitely should buy 42-51 (https://www.amazon.com/Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests-42-51/dp/0986086290) and, individually, 72 and up.

That's a ton of material. Use it wisely and best of luck to you :)

There's a a DK book titled "The Politics Book". It briefly goes over a vast array of political figures and their key "political idea", so to speak. Its not particularly detailed/comprehensive about the ideas it covers, but it does give a solid introduction to the key concepts of said ideas. For example, there are sections on Confucius, Karl Marx, St. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Sun Tzu, Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxembourg, Gabrielle d'Annunzio, Friedrich Nietzsche, James Madison, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, etc. It covers many different political thinkers over 2500 years of human history. Its a great place to start if you're interested in figuring out your political identity.

Wikipedia is also a great place to read, as well. There are thousands of pages on different political ideologies, figures, and parties.

​

Edit: Its a little expensive, but worth the price of admission. https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Book-Ideas-Simply-Explained/dp/1465402144

I brought my score up to be averaging 175.6 on practice exams (not sure about my actual score.... took the December exam and haven't heard back) using just two tools that are not too much money:

1. LSAC released old exams. These are sold in sets of 10 and are the bread and butter of practice exam taking since the curves associated with them are the actual curves from when thousands of students took that exam same test however many months/years ago. Also because they're quite cheap.....
   
   https://www.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305047
   
   
2. PowerScore Logic Games Bible. This is a great way to hammer down a system for logic games. I used a lot of their ways of "coding" logic game rules for when I took LG sections. Using this method, missing 0-2 per LG section almost every time should be well within reach. Also quite cheap....
   
   http://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/powerscore-lsat-logic-games-bible-david-m-killoran/1122994650/2675778825810?st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Marketplace+Shopping+Textbooks_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP20436&k_clickid=3x20436
   
   
   I used exclusively these resources for self-prep and feel extremely confident about a 170+ on my exam (but only time will tell). The key is really just putting in the hours, whether you do it solo or with some help. I took 37 full length practice tests before the real deal, and even that is less than what some people take.
   
   BEST OF LUCK!!
   
   

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 if you are really interested in knowing your rights and how to exercise them I highly recommend
You and the Police
by Boston T. Party. An amazing book that will make you appreciate the freedom that you have and how you had better exercise that freedom or you will lose it. You should buy two while you are at it because you will make everyone you know read it.

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

Arguments are as follows...

1 - Suppose I create a song and put it on a CD for people to buy. They put $5.00 in the mail and send it to me, and in return, I send them a CD with my song on it. On the envelope, it says, "Don't copy or I'll sue. Opening this package is an agreement to not copy."

A guy who bought it opens it up and decides to make a copy to give to his friend as a gift.

The friend makes a torrent and releases it, seeding it until it is self sustaining.

Now, I might have some claim of action against the first copier, because I have an agreement with him. The problem is that I don't have any kind of relationship with everyone else, so why should they be beholden to an agreement that only the first copier made with me? I argue that if there is no agreement, they shouldn't be.

2 - The copyright holder does not own your computer, so if his claim that you cannot infringe on his ownership has any merit, so does your claim that he may not infringe on your computer.

3 - Intellectual property, for the most part, is not legitimate property. See this book to find out why. This ties in with #2.

Pretty sure the Dec 2015 LSAT is quite rare right now as it recently came out. You could try amazon, as it ships really quickly.

Link: http://www.amazon.ca/The-Official-LSAT-PrepTest-77/dp/0986086231

To be honest, don't worry about how recent the preptest is in terms of how valuable it is. Any LSAT preptest from June 2001 onward is generally the same in terms of the questions asked.

Instead of just prioritizing this one test, make it a habit to do as many questions as possible. I started studying the LR heavily just a few weeks ago and I don't use specific preptests. I just have an app that contains a database of all preptest questions and I try to solve a question per minute.

Managing to consistently break 170 now in LR .... time to move on to LG :).

Good luck on your LSAT!

IMO it really depends on the subject and your style of learning.

Subject: The E&Es are good for some subjects and less good for others. I would look around on TLS and Amazon and see what supplements are highly rated for each subject. For example, many people think the "sailboat book" is the best for contracts. Gilbert's is another popular series of books (similar to E&E).

Style of learning: Some people find that they learn better from a book that's in outline format (like Gilbert's), while others prefer something that's more like a treatise (like the sailboat book). You might want to experiment with both and see what you prefer. Chances are your school's library has many of the supplements and you can go have a look at them there.

> 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.)

I don't quite know what forensic genetics is, but if you want to learn more about bones you should get The Human Bone Manual! I loved this book. It's what we used in my human osteology class. Of course it's much easier to learn when you have bones to look at - my professor was very good too, but there's also nice online stuff and books. What kind of job are you trying to get?

Hell yeah brother. Rising 2L here. Started practice tests getting a 145, first real test 155 and second test 161

Different people will tell you different things. Some people work well with courses others with tutors others with books. Taking a logic course in college helped me study as well.

The advice I was given: take as many practice tests as possible. Like 25 is where you become the most effective. By 25 tests you get the lay of the land and the question types and can anticipate patterns.

Links for books with past test here

10 Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests Volume VI: (PrepTests 72–81) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0998339784/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_rNH7CbS8G3Q30

I found the LSAT powerscore study bible also helpful brand of books. Link to those here

The PowerScore LSAT Bible Trilogy https://www.amazon.com/dp/0990893405/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_.NH7CbKEDHM6J

Finally, where you can always improve your score the most is the game section. BEFORE you take any practice test, make 4 of 5 copies of the games section of the test. Do a Timed cold run through. Then once you are finished, go through it. Go on the site 7 sage, they are good for games and other things, also have a good YouTube channel (link below). Watch how he does it, then try it again. Fail and then watch him again and try on another copy. Get them wrong and then try again. Do this until you can go through and get everyone right. By doing it multiple times you get the games down pact and can move through them Quickly.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gorK9SLc2as

Good luck kid. I found the LSAT immensely frustrating. You eventually hit a wall where improvement becomes difficult. Keep grinding and you will get there. PM how you do, and where you end up going

r/lawschooladmissions is cool group but veryyy discouraging tbh. Take your time be confident but apply yourself. Good luck

Thanks for all the advice guys, I have a couple other questions. I'm about half way through this book and he mentions some things I'm curious about. What exactly is a supplement to the reading? Do I have to buy it and is it helpful in understanding things better? Also, what are commercial outlines and what do they do for you? Thanks again for all the help.

Definitely check out [Concepts and Case Analysis in the Law of Contracts] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/160930330X/?tag=lawschooltransferguide-20). That was my favorite supplement to use throughout the semester.

The [Contracts Crunchtime] (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1454870141/?tag=lawschooltransferguide-20) supplement is great for last minute finals prep.

Good luck!

The Five Types of Legal Argument is a good primer on what types of arguments are used in the courts that generate case law. Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law is an excellent resource for constitutional law, which is some of the more interesting stuff. The Nine is an easy read and a good introduction to the personalities and major decisions of the Rehnquist court and early Roberts court. Dressler's Understanding Criminal Law is another good one; it explains the general architecture of criminal law and its development. Those might be available at libraries near you. If there's a law library in your area, you can always grab a legal encyclopedia (like American Jurisprudence 2d. or Corpus Juris Secondum) and a Black's Law Dictionary and flip around until you find something interesting. And as others have mentioned, BarBri is a good resource.

I'm not sure why you're interested in theology per se when your question is epistemic, generally in the domain of philosophy of religion. Given the nature of your question, though, it seems you're looking for something that deals with preliminaries. In this case, I'd recommend Swinburne's The Coherence of Theism.

>This book investigates what it means, and whether it is coherent, to say that there is a God. The author concludes that, despite philosophical objections, the claims which religious believers make about God are generally coherent; and that although some important claims are coherent only if the words by which they are expressed are being used in stretched or analogical senses, this is in fact the way in which theologians have usually claimed they are being used.

If you're interested in the broader impact theology has had on the world, I'd recommend something like Hannam's The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution. But that only deals with science.

>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.

See if your law school offers intro to law courses for undergrads. Mine did and it helped a great deal at piquing my interest in law.

Beyond that, I'd read some books about SCOTUS (G. Toobin's "The Nine" is a good, easy read).

If you want to dig into actual con law without reading yourself into a coma, try Con Law: Principles and Policies by Erwin Chemorinsky (http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Introduction/dp/073555787X)

It was, and is, the Con Law bible for law students. It's heavy on legal concepts but its written well enough that its readable by anyone. I have my copy sitting right next to me on my desk right now. I can't tell you how good this book is for constitutional law 101 type information.

Some stuff that's important in contemporary analytic phil religion:

The Miracle of Theism by J.L. Mackie

God, Freedom, and Evil by Alvin Plantinga

God and Other Minds by Alvin Plantinga

The Coherence of Theism by Richard Swinburne

The Existence of God by Richard Swinburne

Can God Be Free? by William Rowe

Perceiving God by William Alston

How about if in my example, I compared pirating music with using Wikipedia without ever donating money to them? That's the same then. Does the financial situation of wikipedia employees matter? Would it be worth documenting the wikipedia workers' lives? Could that be done without looking like a "donate to wikipedia!" ad?

The best comparison of music piracy is undoubtedly movie piracy; there's clearly no ethical difference. Is it worthwhile to look at how movie producers have been affected financially? Do you think that such a thing could be made without looking like it's pushing a political agenda for the MPAA?

I know that journalism without advocacy exists though, and sure, this information could be useful to people, but like I said in my original post, I just think it's writing the wrong narrative.

Lets say a Walmart moves into town, and runs the local Kmart out of business (not a comparison to music piracy, just an example of voluntarism). Is it appropriate to document the lives of those displaced Kmart workers? Should we make people feel bad about shopping at Walmart? I would say it doesn't matter because everything is completely voluntary, as long as Walmart doesn't purchase from slave owners and doesn't steal things from other people. Voluntary interactions are generally ethical and coercion is generally unethical. It's pretty easy to see what is voluntary and what is coercive when it comes to slavery vs labor, and theft vs trade of physical property. However, It's not clear that violations of intellectual property are unethical or coercive. It's wrong to steal someone's car, because if you do, they don't have a car. If you steal someone's recipe, they still have that recipe.

There are actually very strong arguments that protecting intellectual property causes a net loss for society. This is a very good book, if you're interested. This one is good too, and talks extensively about the philosophy of property rights. In short, IP protection can be very damaging to creative industries because it hampers derivative works, causes a chilling effect which stifles innovation even more, and increases barriers to enter those markets.

I'm pretty sure they can actually come in without a warrant or without knocking now as long as they have 'probable cause' and yes, illegally-seized evidence can be used in some circumstances... --> Understanding Search and Seizure Law

I'm also not one to typically advertise something... but as an ent who has had to deal with the law once or twice, I highly suggest this book to all other ents, for their own safety and the safety of their fellow frients. You and the Police!

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

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

I'm found John Rawls' theory to be quite persuasive.

The essential bit is how would you structure society if you didn't know where in society you will be born into. The analogy I remember is making rules for a card game before you know the hand you will be dealt. It gets a little trickier when you ask what the point of the game is. One clear winner? No clear loser? Even distribution of points no matter what? The chance for even a shitty hand to win?

For the lazy.

Great answer. Read some Hemingway. Short direct sentences.
"For sale, baby shoes, never worn."

Get Volokh's book on legal writing. It won't make you quicker, but might increase your confidence.

https://www.amazon.com/Academic-Legal-Writing-andGetting-University/dp/1599417502

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?

There are no books that can adequately cover British politics to the extent that you're asking. Also, politics and economics are intertwined to the point that you cannot understand one without the other. Freakonomics, for example explains how the two cannot be meaningful separated and is an interesting place to start any political journey.

Depending on your background knowledge 30-Second Politics can give you a grounding of what all the different terminology means and Sex, Lies and the Ballot Box provides useful insight as to the difference between how politics is preached and practiced. Also, The Plan is essential reading to understand our current government.

You've already mentioned Douglass Murray's Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, which I would also thoroughly endorse. Further to that I'd recommend Thomas Pikkety's Capital in the 21st Century which although about economics is so closely tied to current political thought that it really is extremely useful reading

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.

Utilitarianism says that the best action is one that increases the overall good. Rioting reduces "good" for lots of people (especially those who have their stuff destroyed or stolen) by reducing the overall "good" in society.

Some basic reading:
Utilitarianism and Other Essays.
On Liberty and Other Essays.
A Theory of Justice.

Utilitarianism is one of the major philosophies behind human/animal rights and abolition (of slavery). John Stuart Mill's writings have had a large impact on various political philosphies as well as science.

What you're talking about is a really huge decision. I would recommend thinking about your motivation for going to law school and if its worth taking on all the potential debt. Give this book (https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6) a read before quitting your full time job and moving away from your serious gf.

Take a diagnostic test under timed conditions and figure out where you're starting from. If you have to apply this cycle and want to get into the top law schools--I would say, yes, quit your job and study full time if your goal is 170+.

There is a good argument to be made against copyright as well. See Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine and Against Intellectual Property by Stephan N. Kinsella

The LSAT is carefully designed to determine which minds can succeed in law school. Start by taking a timed full exam on your own at home (it's called a "diagnostic") and seeing how well you do. Follow these two links...
https://www.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0998339784/
/r/LSAT
...And check the admitted applicant profiles for the universities you're interested in.

I would look at Law School Transparency. That website will allow you to get an in-depth look at the employment outcomes at each school, as well as the cost of attendance. Outside of the top 20-ish schools, every school is a regional school, and so location, employment outcomes and cost of attendance are more important than ranking.

In my opinion, you should totally ignore US News rankings outside of the top 20. Schools can do things that harm their students in order to boost their ranking. For example, a big part of the reason that Wake Forest is ranked above UNC is that Wake Forest charges higher tuition. This means that their expenditures-per-student are higher, which boosts their ranking.

I found this book to be really helpful. Just be aware that the job market situation is not nearly as dire today as it was when it was published, and so there are now more law schools that are worth attending.

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

Towards the limitation and segregation of the use of state power.

• Abolition of the minimum wage.
  
  
• The complete removal of the school system from municipal and direct central government control and the institution of a voucher system or similar.
  
  
• Decentralisation of UK political system as proposed in Hannan and Carswell's manifesto
  
• Reform of planning regulations, ideally such that land and property owners transact and bargain with each other rather then directly through a government organ.
  
• End Green belt protections and replace with new parks and protections for places of natural beauty.

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.

Thanks! Honestly I practiced exclusively for the logic games section. I gave up on studying for the other sections within a week of buying my first practice book - just drill them like you've never drilled anything before, so that you don't get the 'wait, how can I diagram this?' shock that can kill you from the starting gate when approaching a problem. I didn't have a particularly sophisticated routine to study with, frankly that was it - I'd strongly recommend the published LSATs as your main if not exclusive resource once you've had a basic introduction to diagramming (this was mine,) but would be happy to answer any further questions.

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 wrote an entire book highlighting this fact called, "With Liberty and Justice for Some".

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

Drill games from the 29-38 PT book, those games pretty similar to a lot of the newer games in that they are often more complex and sometimes require unconventional diagrams. I actually think they are a bit harder than the 60s and 70s games which is actually a good thing! If you can ace the games from this book anything you'll see on a modern LSAT will be a piece of cake.

And also watch the 7sage videos for EVERY game you attempt regardless of how you do.

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.

When I took osteology we used this book. It was hella helpful and I really liked it. https://www.amazon.com/Human-Bone-Manual-Tim-White/dp/0120884674

Well, Carswell certainly made his own position on the NHS very clear in his pro-privatisation book, The Plan.

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.

Your friend should definitely read this book

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?

I used Marvin Chirelstein's Concepts and Case Analysis in the Law of Contracts, highly readable, informative and packed with info. Read it probably three times throughout the semester, highly recommend

Everyone I know refers to it simply at "The Boat Book," because it has a boat on its cover haha

http://www.amazon.com/Chirelsteins-Concepts-Analysis-Contracts-Insights/dp/160930330X

If you really want to be sure, just get the 4th edition used. It surely will be enough. https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/073555787X/ref=sr_1_2_olp?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486744787&sr=1-2&keywords=chemerinsky+constitutional+law

Feel free to ignore me, but I think you'd enjoy this.

Don't be put off by the fact it's a bit old. 95% of its ideas are as relevant today as when it was published.

And you can get it for 1p.

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

I read a few - none were worth it in my opinion except for 1L of a ride - it covers everything and is extremely witty and humorous - keeps things light but gives you a few tips to look out for. I found every chapter to be true at least in part.

"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

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)

How my my demeanour presumptive? I followed all proper rules once pulled over. Or maybe the cop was out of line for talking about my race? What does that have to do with my ticket? No one has mentioned the racial slur of the cop.

The reply to your actual question, read this book by Balko, it is a great read if you want to understand this social issue:
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

This is all I read, easy read and gives you a good idea of the process.

Everyone else recommends Volkoh, but I barely cracked the cover though.

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.

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

My copy of The Human Bone Manual is one of my most prized possessions - it's indispensable as a reference text for bioarchaeology (or anyone in a skeletal anatomy class :D). Here's a relevant sample.

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).

This may not be relevant to you anymore, but in case anyone else comes to this page and is interested:

https://smile.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0998339784/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1503856494&sr=1-7&keywords=10+official+lsat+tests

For an academic competition, I had to study the different political views throughout history and I read the coolest book. There is another covering the philosophy as well. They are called the politics book and the philosophy book, respectively. There is even an economics version. Here is the politics one. http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Book-Ideas-Simply-Explained/dp/1465402144

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

Haven't read it myself, but I think this book would fit the bill.

More people should read this book before even taking the LSAT. Would save a lot of heartache to a lot of people.

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

The Human Bone Manual is like a biblical source to me. Also, Stiff, by Mary Roach is some SERIOUSLY interesting stuff.

I found this one very helpful - https://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Case-Analysis-Contracts-Insights/dp/160930330X

>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.

You could look at something like the DK Politics Book for an overview of a lot of different concepts and problems within politics. It's in the style of an encyclopaedia, which means it's pretty neutral.

Swing and a miss on so many levels. You're like the person who struck out on your first pitch.

As a forensic anthropologist with an emphasis in genetics, I can tell you specifically what science (anthropology specifically) says about this- race is a social construct that has nothing to do with genetics, and there's no such thing as "success" when it comes to culture or "racial groups" in science.

Here's a few books you can read up on:
Demographic Methods and Concepts

The Genetics of Human Populations


and for osteology:

The Human Bone Manual


This should clear up some of the bigger misconceptions you might have. I also recomment Svante-Paabo for ancient DNA work as well.

To begin with, I'll tell you my methods are regarded by my friends as unorthodox.

I began with going online onto a blog which had some LSAT questions. I got like 3/5 right, and I was like fuck, what have I gotten myself into? I'm poor, so I immediately decided to study on my own. I bought this, this, and this. After taking like ten tests, I decided to spring for the Logical Reasoning Bible and Logic Games Bible. Overall, I read through those two bibles from cover to cover doing the exercises through and through, not trying to cheat myself of any material. I did it for a month, cause that's all the time I had, but I wish I had spent at least a month and a half. That consisted of four hours of studying (three of which were taking a diagnostic and re-checking wrong answers and another one or two reading the bibles) every day on the weekdays and six or seven on the weekends with no breaks.

I've heard Kaplan is shit. A good friend of mine took Blueprint, and did really well his second time, but knowing him, he would have done so studying himself. If you're going to be using the prep books, I recommend, if you can, doing so at least three months in advance of the June test. The thing is that if you fuck up, you wanna retake Sep/Oct as opposed to retaking Dec. Because admissions are rolling, you're at a huge disadvantage having your app done in December. So your 11th year around March is when you wanna start looking at it. April and May would have to be intense but seeing as finals can be around that time, I would suggest February and March.

In the end, whatever works for you. Just know that Dec applicants are at a huge disadvantage compared to October ones. Also, I was told by students in the admission committee that they look for students who've taken time off after their undergrad. Cal's ratio is 60% who haven't and 40% who have, so keep that in mind. I went straight, because I didn't trust myself.

If you want to be more critical about $ and law school options, just read Don't Go to Law School (Unless). It's written by an actual law professor who shows you how to analyze the choice to go to law school and where best to go.

​

https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6

Making your own outline is overrated. Just find a good one and study that. Also, read this.

Use the LSAT questions for reading comprehension and critical reasoning. LSAT is the 'GMAT' for law school aspirants. The questions are designed in a similar way to how GMAT questions are designed and more importantly, tested in a controlled environment. It's an invaluable resource.
You can buy them in paper format only and they come in packs of 10 tests usually. Check this out:


https://www.amazon.com/More-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305039/ref=sr_1_12?crid=1M3GTJPKTLEJQ&keywords=lsat+practice+tests&qid=1562685057&s=gateway&sprefix=LSAT%2Caps%2C298&sr=8-12

​

Note that there is an extra section of logic games that you can ignore. The rest is fair game and very helpful for improving your Verbal.


As for sentence correction there is unfortunately no more than the ones available through GMAT, but they can be more than enough if you review them thoroughly.


Whatever you do, avoid questions that are not designed by an official testing board. They do more harm than good.

​

Cheers.

You've not been here long I take it. Andrew Romanoff was the youngest Speaker of the House in our history. He was term limited & he is well liked and respected.

Take some time to get to know him, he's more qualified for the position than everyone else combined. He earned a bachelor's degree from Yale University, took time off from Yale to work at the Southern Poverty Law Center, where he researched the Ku Klux Klan. He also worked at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and taught English in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. During his time in Nicaragua, his political philosophy was shaped by reading A Theory of Justice by liberal philosopher John Rawls.

Then he earned a Master's degree in public policy from John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Prior to earning a law degree from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, Romanoff worked for Democratic Congressman David Skaggs.

On this point, I highly recommend Don't Go To Law School (Unless). It's not a fun read for those planning on law school, but I think reading it with an open mind is important.

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.

Just search for lsats 62-71 and 72-81, from lsac. They say 10 more lsats or something like that.

Here’s one: https://www.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0998339784/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2MS42DQRICNGL&keywords=lsat+62-71&qid=1556112119&s=gateway&sprefix=LSAT+62-%2Caps%2C155&sr=8-2

Here is the amazon link for 72-81:

10 Actual Official LSAT PrepTests 72-81

The rest can be purchased individually on amazon for about 8 dollars each.

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

Have you seriously not heard about the abysmal legal employment market? And yes, that includes for grads of top 20 schools.

What did you major in? Computer science, STEM, etc. are where it's at if you want to make a good living. My best friend from high school did computer science and he's killing it while I live below the poverty line with my top 20 law degree.

Edit: if you still unbelievably want to think about law school, read this: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6

Law school is just a VERY VERY risky proposition and if you don't do ALL of the right things, there is no safety net on which to land. I speak from my own shit life experience.

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.

Ahhhhhhhhhh. I get it now. You still believe in IP. No wonder you're not seeing the big issue.

Read Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella.

http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Property-Stephan-Kinsella/dp/B001DTHFWS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412965306&sr=8-1&keywords=against+intellectual+property

> if they can legally disarm me, and I make it known that I don't consent, is there a case for me in the courtroom?

No, because they can legally disarm you.

When I say don't consent to any search, I'm referring to posts like this one from yesterday. The reason to do this is to capture for their dashcam/audio and your dashcam/audio that no searches have been consented to. That way if they do go beyond a Terry search you've got it on record.

Also, I recommend checking out the book You & the Police!. Much will have changed since this book was published, but as a basic primer on what the police can and can't legally do I believe it still remains relevant.

If you could redo the talking-to-the-cops part, what would you say? You certainly couldn't lie to them, and I'm not suggesting that you would, but you had to say something. Here's a book, You &The Police that gives some relevant advice.

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.

You have a right to remain innocent. This is a very quick and easy read. I generally hate lawyers and this guy puts disclaimers into the beginning that praise government, but i can't help but think he understands anarchy.

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

https://www.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0986045519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1468434137&sr=8-1&keywords=10+lsat+preptests

https://www.amazon.com/Next-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305055/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1468434137&sr=8-2&keywords=10+lsat+preptests

https://www.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305047/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1468434137&sr=8-3&keywords=10+lsat+preptests

https://www.amazon.com/More-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305039/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1468434137&sr=8-5&keywords=10+lsat+preptests

http://www.amazon.com/Academic-Legal-Writing-andGetting-University/dp/1599417502

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

I don't know if you are in school or not but if you have access to an anatomy or biology lab that has real human bones you could use them as reference. You could look at the human bone manual https://www.amazon.com/Human-Bone-Manual-Tim-White/dp/0120884674/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467507833&sr=1-1&keywords=human+bone+manual You should also think about are the bones you are modeling male or female, Juvenal or adult because these will change the dimensions.

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

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

The first book is out of print but the second one is here: https://www.amazon.com/10-Actual-Official-LSAT-PrepTests/dp/0979305047

Published 6 years ago, but still relevant today:

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

Amazon and Barnes and Noble both say October 4th.

http://www.amazon.com/You-Police-Boston-T-Party/dp/1888766093/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1419439684&sr=8-2&keywords=dealing+with+the+police

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

https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6

Don't Go To Law School (Unless)

Third year law student. Incoming students, for example, are 1L's. Here is one of the books about being a 1L.

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

http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Book-DK-Publishing/dp/1465402144/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376765200&sr=8-1&keywords=the+politics+book

You guys should read this Radley Balko book from 2013.

Don't go to law school (Unless) by Paul Campos.

Source: pages 118-119 of this book

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?

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...

> 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.

BOAT. BOOK.

Where this book will take you, you won't need encouragement.

They are cheapest if you buy the books of ten instead of single preptests. The titles are a little confusing, so check to see which test numbers are included. Here are the three most recent (and most relevant):

Preptests 72-81

Preptests 62-71

Preptests 52-61

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

They'll never allow books like that in there.

This might sound mean, but I'd recommend Paul Campos' book "Don't Go To Law School (Unless)". It really made me think about the decision I was making, why I wanted to go to back to school, etc - it's so easy to lose sight of that in the slog of the admissions process and in sifting through schools' various sales pitches.

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

I had no problems with ordering them.

Here's a link to one. Just look for the author Law School Admissions Council to be sure.

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_

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.

I only did this in the last week, but Khan Academy also gives you some free full digital tests. Maybe get a book of practice tests, but if you have to work like I did you probably won't get as many in as many other people here. I found it helpful to write down the numbers of the answers I got wrong per section and then blind review/reanswer just the ones I got wrong to try to understand where I messed up. If you have a section you know you are satisfied with (I'm no 170+, so I was happy to only get 2-4 wrong on LR, so focused on LG) then do more of those sections than full tests, unless you have time for full tests.

after you finish law school, do not start living like a rich lawyer.
continue to live like a broke person and aggressively pay down your college debt. don't buy a BMW or move to an upscale part of town. keep your expenses low until you pay off the debt. afterwards, you'll potentially be earning a $100k+ income and have no debt ... that's a very strong position to be in.

if you haven't read Paul Campos's book Don't Go To Law School (Unless), I urge you to read it. It's one of the most balanced and realistic examinations of the costs and benefits of law school. I know several people who went to law school and regretted it because they didn't have all the facts and had naive expectations. https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Law-School-Unless-Opportunity-ebook/dp/B009D13IA6

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?

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.