Video: Milwaukee County Sheriff wants Eric Holder to apologize

posted at 11:01 am on August 24, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Andrew Johnson, writing at The Corner, provides the video of Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke’s interview on Fox News, during which he expresses his displeasure with Eric Holder’s remarks in Ferguson.

Attorney general Eric Holder and Missouri Democratic leaders need to apologize to the law-enforcement community for impugning officers’ motives in light of the unrest in Ferguson, Mo., according to one prominent county sheriff.

Milwaukee County sheriff David Clarke, who gained notoriety last year for encouraging gun ownership within his Wisconsin community, said Holder, Governor Jay Nixon, and Senator Claire McCaskill made the situation in Ferguson worse with their “irresponsible, inflammatory” comments about the city’s police force and its supposed problem with race relations. Clarke argued on Fox News on Friday that the trio was “insinuating that our law-enforcement officers across the United States engage in some nefarious or systematic and cultural attempts to violate people’s civil rights.”

“I thought that was a slap in the face to every law-enforcement officer in America who puts on the badge and the uniform everyday to go out and risk their lives in service to their community,” he said.

This response wasn’t the first of its kind, nor do I expect it to be the last. In fact, one of the first questions I asked after seeing both the media and White House response to Ferguson was, Am I the only one who finds this rather insulting to the nation’s first responders in general?

The general tenor coming from the AG’s visit – abetted by far too much of the mainstream media coverage – carries two distinct layers of implications which should be offensive to those who answer the call and enter public service as police officers. One is that there is some sort of filter in place which makes sure that white cops are incapable of controlling their inherent racism and desire to stomp on minorities. The second is that all cops – of any color – are somehow carried away with a desire for power and dominance rather than justice and protection, the moment you place some tactical equipment in their hands.

For more on this perspective, be sure to check out Victor Davis Hanson’s comments today.

[D]emagogic politicians use these tragedies for political advantage — usually in ways that only make things worse. Libertarian senator Rand Paul, who is eyeing a 2016 presidential run, blamed the police for their overt military appearance and their crowd-control tactics. Yet street violence still persisted days after police in military-style riot gear were pulled from the scene — until finally there were requests for National Guard intervention.

Sheriff Clarke is offended, and the rest of our law enforcement officers should be as well. Here’s the full video.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Statistical evidence shows that sobriety checkpoints have reduced the DWI fatality rate by at least 20% in that time frame. Why do you have a problem with cops saving lives?

(Starts Sundial)

Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

They should put them in front of bars …right?

CW on August 24, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Why do you have a problem with cops saving lives?

Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Oh and that is lame. Sounds like one of Libfree’s tactics.

CW on August 24, 2014 at 3:48 PM

To his credit, Eric Holder has been surprisingly effective at stalking parade floats.

The NEA reports a steep decline in unauthorized Obama Outhouse displays.

Terp Mole on August 24, 2014 at 3:53 PM

I like this guy. As Dennis Miller would say: I like the cut of his jib.

crosshugger on August 24, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Ron Johnson is the other despicable low-life scum that needs to be mentioned in the same breath as Nixon, Holder and the other subhumans of the Ferguson ordeal.

Buddahpundit on August 24, 2014 at 5:13 PM

Thank you, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, for nailing the criminal Chicago thug!

avagreen on August 24, 2014 at 5:38 PM

clearbluesky = Aquateen Hungerforce, aka “Meatwad“?

tanked59 on August 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM

According to Schadenfreude, it looks like Meatwad will have to throw his little tantrums elsewhere.
Thank you.

HornetSting on August 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM

I hope that is the case. That POS needs to keep itself on one of the many rabid, frothing at the mouth leftist barking moonbat sites which will welcome it with open arms.

tanked59 on August 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Don’t know who meatwad is, but it isn’t me, thanks for the continued insults though, always a pleasure.

clearbluesky on August 24, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Meatwad’s contributions to the discussion primarily took the form of stating “Kill the pigs!” and similar sentiments. His absence is a pleasure.

talkingpoints on August 24, 2014 at 6:15 PM

No thanks. I left my Email on an upthread post if you want to hear from me that badly.

gryphon202 on August 24, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I realllly don’t think anyone here would like you to have their email address, however.

talkingpoints on August 24, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Why do you have a problem with cops saving lives?
Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Then you’re 110% in favor of Obamacare right?

Nutstuyu on August 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Why do you have a problem with cops saving lives?
Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Then you’re 110% in favor of Obamacare right?

Nutstuyu on August 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM

WTF???

katy the mean old lady on August 24, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Then you’re 110% in favor of Obamacare right?

Nutstuyu on August 24, 2014 at 6:32 PM

HAHAHA.
Yeah. Saving lives!
You mean the health insurance-canceling and destroying train wreck whose most prominent feature is federal life-or-death deciding ‘death panels’ ?

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on August 24, 2014 at 7:17 PM

This Ferguson type stuff will only end when demokkkrats are out of power; that includes the pigment pimps and the race hustlers.

Mojave Mark on August 24, 2014 at 7:26 PM

They should put them in front of bars …right?

CW on August 24, 2014 at 3:45 PM

I like the element of surprise.

katy the mean old lady on August 24, 2014 at 7:33 PM

katy the mean old lady on August 24, 2014 at 7:33 PM

I sent you an email.

Cindy Munford on August 24, 2014 at 7:36 PM

I sent you an email.

Cindy Munford on August 24, 2014 at 7:36 PM

To the att or gmail?

katy the mean old lady on August 24, 2014 at 7:46 PM

katy the mean old lady on August 24, 2014 at 7:46 PM

gmail

Cindy Munford on August 24, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Milwaukee county sheriff is an Uncle Tom…signed any leftwing POS.

bgibbs1000 on August 24, 2014 at 8:31 PM

gmail

Cindy Munford on August 24, 2014 at 7:53 PM

Take it outside, girls. ;-\

Jaibones on August 24, 2014 at 10:13 PM

This guy has made a couple of unexpectedly solid plays. Good on him.

Jaibones on August 24, 2014 at 10:17 PM

Please reconcile these two posts a minute apart.

Take your time.

Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2014 at 3:44 PM

I don’t own a car, nor do I have a driver’s license. That does not preclude me from riding in other people’s cars as a passenger.

Why do you have a problem with cops saving lives?

(Starts Sundial)

Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Because people that would trade freedom for safety deserve neither. Besides which, I am firmly convinced that changing patrol patterns and putting more cops out on the street to patrol and pull over drunk drivers instead of all drivers going through a checkpoint would have the same effect. Now ask me why I have a problem with cops violating the fourth and fifth amendments.

gryphon202 on August 24, 2014 at 10:42 PM

No thanks. I left my Email on an upthread post if you want to hear from me that badly.

gryphon202 on August 24, 2014 at 1:51 PM

I realllly don’t think anyone here would like you to have their email address, however.

talkingpoints on August 24, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Individual prerogative I suppose. Anyhow, any cops, cops’ friends, or cops’ family members wishing to argue why I am wrong is free to do so in a more suitable venue than an anonymous comment board. Now that I’ve put myself out there, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect someone else to do the same.

gryphon202 on August 24, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Individual prerogative I suppose. Anyhow, any cops, cops’ friends, or cops’ family members wishing to argue why I am wrong is free to do so in a more suitable venue than an anonymous comment board. Now that I’ve put myself out there, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect someone else to do the same.

gryphon202 on August 24, 2014 at 10:46 PM

Thx for the invite but I already have plenty of people to argue with close to home.

arnold ziffel on August 24, 2014 at 11:42 PM

Thx for the invite but I already have plenty of people to argue with close to home.

arnold ziffel on August 24, 2014 at 11:42 PM

What blew me away is that when I cited an example of what good, and yes, honorable policing looks like, the same folks that were insulted by my prior statements were even more insulted by that. That doesn’t sound to me like someone who’s interested in a rational conversation anyway. Just as well.

gryphon202 on August 24, 2014 at 11:53 PM

I missed this little gem from a couple of days ago. Not every example of police misconduct falls under the grass eater/meat eater paradigm.

Heh.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 12:28 AM

Libertarian senator Rand Paul, who is eyeing a 2016 presidential run, blamed the police

He’s now running to the left of Hillary.

Don L on August 25, 2014 at 7:13 AM

Holder is a RACIST (‘MY PEOPLE’ / ‘No Cases of Reverse Discrimination Will Be Persued While I am Attorney General’), CRIMINAL (No Less Than 3 Proven Felony Counts of Perjury Before Congress For Which He Was Censured) PO$, plain and simple!

Obama exposed blatantly that he is also a RACIST PO$, as well, by sending 3 (THREE) Wgite House aids to Michael Brown’s – the disrespectful, marijuana-using, THUG who robbed a store, assaulted the owner, disresepcted a cop and attacked a cop – funeral. No White House aide went to 4-Star General Greene’s (the General killed in Afghanistan) funeral…No WH Aide went to Foley’s – American Beheaded – Funeral/Ceremony…A US Marine is still sitting in a Mexican Jail cell while a thousand illegals will cross into the US today yet Obama won’t pick up the phone….but Obama sent 3 WH Aides to the funeral of this THUG!?

PATHETIC!

easyt65 on August 25, 2014 at 8:14 AM

And ‘Rev’ Al ‘Race-Profiteer’ Sharpton led an Anti-Police March in NYC…what another useless PO$! I hope his house gets robbed while he is in it, he calls the cops, they say they’ll be right there, and then they don’t show up for a couple hours!

easyt65 on August 25, 2014 at 8:16 AM

Why do you have a problem with cops saving lives?

(Starts Sundial)

Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Because people that would trade freedom for safety deserve neither. Besides which, I am firmly convinced that changing patrol patterns and putting more cops out on the street to patrol and pull over drunk drivers instead of all drivers going through a checkpoint would have the same effect. Now ask me why I have a problem with cops violating the fourth and fifth amendments.

gryphon202 on August 24, 2014 at 10:42 PM

As I see it, you have at least 2 problems here, and both of them concern your refusal to confront reality.

1. You simply ignore my stat citing the 20% reduction in highway fatalities as a result of the sobriety checkpoints.

2. You simply ignore the fact that the Supreme Court ruled (in 1990) that no amendments are violated by those sobriety checkpoints.

So far in this thread I’ve refrained from grading you, but your willful (and willing) ignorance of facts, simply because they don’t agree with your own anti-cop agenda, gives me no choice but to conclude that your refusal to accept and confront reality is no longer worth my time.

F-

Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2014 at 9:42 AM

1. You simply ignore my stat citing the 20% reduction in highway fatalities as a result of the sobriety checkpoints.

2. You simply ignore the fact that the Supreme Court ruled (in 1990) that no amendments are violated by those sobriety checkpoints.

So far in this thread I’ve refrained from grading you, but your willful (and willing) ignorance of facts, simply because they don’t agree with your own anti-cop agenda, gives me no choice but to conclude that your refusal to accept and confront reality is no longer worth my time.

F-

Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2014 at 9:42 AM

I ignore neither of those points. First of all, I did not say that sobriety checkpoints don’t reduce drunk driving. I’m sure they do. That’s not my argument. My argument is that you don’t have to pull over sober drivers like they do at checkpoints in order to see the same reduction. It is you, sir, who are ignoring my point in the service of your defense of unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints.

Secondly, I am not ignoring what the supreme court has said about sobriety checkpoints. The supreme court should not be the arbiter of what the constitution is and isn’t.

The fourth amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

By the reasonable man standard, “the supreme court said it’s okay” is the only defense that any state’s government can make of this legal travesty. So you can take your F- and shove it firmly up your ass.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM

The supreme court should not be the arbiter of what the constitution is and isn’t.

Other than the fact that is one of its functions, you mean.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Other than the fact that is one of its functions, you mean.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 11:08 AM

Except that it’s not. The Supreme Court took that function for itself in the Marbury V Madison ruling. “Judicial Review” is nowhere in the constitution.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 11:11 AM

Except that it’s not.

I see. You might want to go back and read about Article III of The Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789. We’ll ignore lack of legislation up to and including Constitutional amendment to limit the role of the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret The Constitution.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Article 2 section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Now where in there does it say anything about judicial review? As for the Judiciary Act of 1789, it established the courts as per section 1 of article 2. Says nothing about the court’s powers or makeup. Left that up to congress.

Rabbit trails. I hate chasing rabbit trails. Grrr.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 11:32 AM

Statistical evidence shows that sobriety checkpoints have reduced the DWI fatality rate by at least 20% in that time frame. Why do you have a problem with cops saving lives?

(Starts Sundial)

Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

The evidence shows no such thing. It shows a correlation.

The Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility claims they deserve the credit for the reduction in fatalities from alcohol related crashes.

There has been a 48% decrease in the rate of drunk driving fatalities per 100,000 population since they were founded in 1991.

Most states over the last 20 years have reduced legal BAC levels as well. It is now at .08 or less in nearly every state, if not every state.

One could argue that this reduction has as much to do with the drop as any other policy.

Point is, sobriety checkpoints have contributed to a reduction in alcohol related traffic fatalities, but they are definitely not the only cause for the reduction.

airupthere on August 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM

…I’d love to hear about the 3 shots in the arm because, with no knowledge of the situation, it appears he was trying to wound him to stop him from coming and, after that didn’t work, there was no alternative. Once again, we haven’t heard from the police on this.

bflat879 on August 24, 2014 at 11:20 AM

The best explanation I heard was that if the officer had sustained damage to his eye (which seems to be the case), it would probably throw off his aim to one side or the other depending on which eye was damaged. If this were the case, his early shots would be off to one side (the arm) until he was able to compensate.

dominigan on August 25, 2014 at 12:03 PM

Rabbit trails. I hate chasing rabbit trails. Grrr.

I believe you misspelled “I hate learning things or having to look up anything other than in Wikipaedia.”

Here you go, more than you want to know.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 12:45 PM

I believe you misspelled “I hate learning things or having to look up anything other than in Wikipaedia.”

Here you go, more than you want to know.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Okay. So where in the constitution does the Supreme Court have the power of judicial review? “Go find out for yourself” isn’t a valid answer.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Sadly typical for a people that turned its back on God and raised the middle finger and are shocked, shocked, that things aren’t going as well as they imagined they would. Our Founders promised and warned this was certain suicide, and were certainly wise enough in knowing Biblical and world history enough to know the warning would be as in vain as it was for Israel when she did the same so many centuries ago, including having her Messiah crucified, Matthew 27:25. God save us. Soli Deo gloria!

russedav on August 25, 2014 at 2:11 PM

“Go find out for yourself” isn’t a valid answer.

My fault for not realizing you had to be spoonfed, I didn’t realize you were that insecure in what you thought you knew, and too lazy to look up anything at a link provided for you convenience.

So, because I am a giver:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority

From my previous link:

Judicial Review—The Convention’s longest debate involving the judiciary focused on Madison’s proposal for a council of revision. Following the model of the New York state constitution, Madison envisioned a council made up of the President and a group of judges who would review all legislation and have the authority to suggest revisions or to veto an act. The council would also have had authority to review Congress’s recommendation for the disallowance of state legislation. Madison, who believed that the natural tendency of a republican legislature was “to absorb all power into its vortex,” thought it was essential to bring the executive and judicial branches together as a check on improper or unjust legislation. He so strongly advocated this role of the judiciary that he brought the motion up twice after the Convention had rejected it.

Many delegates thought it would violate the separation of powers to join the executive and the judicial in this way. Judges should not have a role in the formation of policy, said Nathaniel Gorham. Caleb Strong of Massachusetts feared that the judges’ role on a council of revision would undermine their credibility when they reviewed laws that were challenged in court. John Rutledge thought judges should never give an opinion on legislation until it was law. The Convention repeatedly rejected Madison’s proposal and left the President with the sole authority to veto legislation. Although the Constitution made no reference to judicial review, the debate on the council of revision made clear that many delegates believed the council was unnecessary because they expected the federal judiciary to exercise the power of judicial review to declare laws invalid.

The Constitution’s grant of jurisdiction to federal courts extended to all cases “in law and equity” arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM

Judicial Power =/= Judicial Review.

Pardon my begging the obvious, but if the language of Article 2 applies to judicial review, how come the article goes on further to outline the Supreme Court’s constitutional powers?

On second thought, you don’t have to answer that. I already know that you’re perfectly okay with flushing the fourth amendment down the toilet in the name of public safety. That’s all I need to know about you cop loving knob polishers. You’ll sacrifice your freedom for the illusion of safety. That’s enough for me to know that you deserve neither.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 3:35 PM

That’s all I need to know about you cop loving knob polishers.

Always tasteful, and failed to read the post or the links, I see.

Why don’t you just admit you hate cops because the reason you don’t drive is because when you were stopped at a seatbelt checkpoint you got busted for a DUI, and you think the floor of your car being littered with empty Night Train bottles wasn’t probable cause for your Breathalyzer.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM

Why don’t you just admit you hate cops because the reason you don’t drive is because when you were stopped at a seatbelt checkpoint you got busted for a DUI, and you think the floor of your car being littered with empty Night Train bottles wasn’t probable cause for your Breathalyzer.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM

I’ll say it again in case you missed it upthread, Muldoon:

I don’t drive. Never have. I have only been in cars as a passenger. That is due in small part to a neurological condition, and due in large part to my deciding not to have to pay the expense of fuel and upkeep. I have had issues with being the subject of sloppy police work that led to all charges being dropped, and that was also when I had the benefit of a good public defender to help me. I still consider lawyering a dishonorable profession!

Not only are you wrong about me, you are so laughably wrong that you make me wonder how you could ever expect me to take you seriously after today.

I’ll start trusting cops when they start Peelian policing. Aside from being a blatant violation of the fourth amendment (I don’t give a shit what the Supreme Court says), they are also a violation of four of the nine Peelian Principles. I will not surrender my freedom for safety and it utterly disgusts me to see how many Americans gladly do just that.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 5:50 PM

Always tasteful, and failed to read the post or the links, I see.

Why don’t you just admit you hate cops because the reason you don’t drive is because when you were stopped at a seatbelt checkpoint you got busted for a DUI, and you think the floor of your car being littered with empty Night Train bottles wasn’t probable cause for your Breathalyzer.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM

LMAO! Thanks!

katy the mean old lady on August 25, 2014 at 5:51 PM

I’ll say it again in case you missed it upthread, Muldoon:

I don’t drive. Never have. I have only been in cars as a passenger. That is due in small part to a neurological condition, and due in large part to my deciding not to have to pay the expense of fuel and upkeep. I have had issues with being the subject of sloppy police work that led to all charges being dropped, and that was also when I had the benefit of a good public defender to help me. I still consider lawyering a dishonorable profession!

Not only are you wrong about me, you are so laughably wrong that you make me wonder how you could ever expect me to take you seriously after today.

I’ll start trusting cops when they start Peelian policing. Aside from being a blatant violation of the fourth amendment (I don’t give a shit what the Supreme Court says), they are also a violation of four of the nine Peelian Principles. I will not surrender my freedom for safety and it utterly disgusts me to see how many Americans gladly do just that.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 5:50 PM

We believe you, thousands wouldn’t.
Do you have any vacation time coming? Take a trip to any pub in Ireland. North or the Republic. Explail Peelian principals to the peasants there.

katy the mean old lady on August 25, 2014 at 5:56 PM

We believe you, thousands wouldn’t.
Do you have any vacation time coming? Take a trip to any pub in Ireland. North or the Republic. Explail Peelian principles to the peasants there.

katy the mean old lady on August 25, 2014 at 5:56 PM

(just a minor cleanup there, Katy…ahem)

Peelian principles are like conservative politics. They are most likely to fail when they are compromised.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Statistical evidence shows that sobriety checkpoints have reduced the DWI fatality rate by at least 20% in that time frame. Why do you have a problem with cops saving lives?

(Starts Sundial)

Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2014 at 3:39 PM

My source shows no such thing. It shows a correlation.

airupthere on August 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Fixed.

My sources were official government statistics. You’re citing a Foundation that is claiming that they deserve all of the credit.

I can easily post the links for my 20% figure, but they will just be ignored. But thanks for playing!

Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2014 at 6:02 PM

The supreme court should not be the arbiter of what the constitution is and isn’t.

The supreme court should not be the arbiter of what the constitution is and isn’t.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 10:43 AM

In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law.

Always has been.

Oh, and thanks so much for the childish and gratuitous closing reference to anatomical body parts. Shows the exact location of what’s left of your brain!

F-

Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2014 at 6:08 PM

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 6:02 PM

Take the trip and see the country. Save your Peelian rant for the last night. You can, with a little practice, type with a left big toe.

katy the mean old lady on August 25, 2014 at 6:19 PM

I have had issues with being the subject of sloppy police work that led to all charges being dropped, and that was also when I had the benefit of a good public defender to help me.

OK, so my details were wrong, but it appears that because your charges were dropped because of sloppy police work, my assumption that you have it in for the rozzers just because of a run in with them was spot on. My congratulations on your defender convincing the court the joint wasn’t yours after all.

I’ll start trusting cops when they start Peelian policing. Aside from being a blatant violation of the fourth amendment (I don’t give a shit what the Supreme Court says), they are also a violation of four of the nine Peelian Principles.

Peelian – your Wikipaedia word-of-the-day, last week it was “grass eaters” after you read the Wikipaedia article on the Knapp Commission. Do you always perseverate about the last thing you read ? Regarding the Supreme Court, I take it you are one of those types who only likes it when they make decisions you favor, but get over it, if they said DUI checkpoints are constitutional, they are.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Two things Mr.Gryphon
-everyone, including cops, is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
-the relatively few interactions with police that go bad are picked up and reported endlessly by the media. The millions of positive police/citizen interactions go largely unreported.

Okay, maybe three things-there is almost always information that the public is not privy to in every incident. Basically, if you weren’t there you have no right to judge.

hopeful on August 25, 2014 at 6:32 PM

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Didn’t we fight some war to not have British rule? I’m a little vague about when. Sometime in my early teens? Around 1776 or some shit?

katy the mean old lady on August 25, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Katy,

You are indeed correct, and what is also interesting is that even the Brits are abandoning the vaunted “Peelian” business as what worked in the homogeneous, rigidly class demarcated society of 1800s Britain, does not work in the socialist and heterogeneous milieu with which they contend today.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Peelian – your Wikipaedia word-of-the-day, last week it was “grass eaters” after you read the Wikipaedia article on the Knapp Commission. Do you always perseverate about the last thing you read ? Regarding the Supreme Court, I take it you are one of those types who only likes it when they make decisions you favor, but get over it, if they said DUI checkpoints are constitutional, they are.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 6:22 PM

Again you assume so much about me that is not in evidence,. I am a proponent of legislative nullification. It is for the states to decide what is constitutional and what is not.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

“no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

…unless nine men and women in black robes decide otherwise?

BULLSHIT.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Two things Mr.Gryphon
-everyone, including cops, is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
-the relatively few interactions with police that go bad are picked up and reported endlessly by the media. The millions of positive police/citizen interactions go largely unreported.

Okay, maybe three things-there is almost always information that the public is not privy to in every incident. Basically, if you weren’t there you have no right to judge.

hopeful on August 25, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Cops are indeed entitled to the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. The problem is, when they kill or injure in the name of policework, the investigations almost never get that far because the cops are allowed to investigate themselves.

And here we go with that “relatively few” business again. How many innocent deaths do you think is an appropriate price to pay for “civilized society?”

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM

It just floors me that you people are arguing against policing by public consent because “Supreme Court” and “Britain.” No arguments about how sound any of the individual nine principles are. Just taking pot shots at me on the basis of grotesquely erroneous assumptions about my past interactions with the police. And then when I invite you to get to know me in a less anonymous environment than this comment board, I am mocked further. When I hold up an example of what I *do* consider to be honorable policing, it just seems to piss you off even more than anything else I’ve said to wit. Whatever. I guess this is why we can’t have nice things, America.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Gryphon
My answer is zero innocent deaths. Cops that behave criminally should be prosecuted. Cops that use poor judgment should be disciplined. But…
You are painting an entire profession of almost all good, well meaning and law abiding cops as bad based on a few bad apples. The Ferguson cop has been tried, convicted and sentenced of murder and racism in the court of public opinion before any charges have been brought. As for the Peeler principles what do you expect cops who are armed with a handgun and night stick to do against riotors equipped with rocks, sticks and Molotov cocktails? Especially when the cops are outnumbered?

hopeful on August 25, 2014 at 7:39 PM

…unless nine men and women in black robes decide otherwise?

Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court does, in fact get to determine that which is held to be constitutional, at least until a given decision is overturned by a subsequent court, or other legislative action.

The Supreme Court in 1990 ruled that DUI checkpoints do not violate any principles of being “unreasonable”. Further, the decision aside, there is no functional difference between a checkpoint and your solution of putting more cruisers on the street to pull people over who they think might be drunk driving.

So, suck it up, Buttercup.

It just floors me that you people are arguing against policing by public consent…

A concept you hadn’t heard of till last week; your assignment is to explain why they aren’t working real well in Britain today if they are so great, and why these reasons might be extrapolated to the US.

…erroneous assumptions about my past interactions with the police…

You are the one who keeps bringing up your problems with the law in the past, so now you would have us believe that is not the cause of your hatred of cops. Right.

F X Muldoon on August 25, 2014 at 7:58 PM

…unless nine men and women in black robes decide otherwise?

BULLSHIT.

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Still smarting over how SCOTUS smacked your husband Al Gore down in 3 straight decisions in 2000, I see!

9-0

7-2

5-4

YOU LOSE.

PS, your last comment shows your intellectual age. Grow up, and maybe we’ll stop laughing at you!

Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2014 at 10:42 PM

gryphon202 on August 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM

PS, gonna watch “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” now.

Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2014 at 10:43 PM

[D]emocratagogic politicians use these tragedies for political advantage — usually in ways that only make things worse.

FIFY. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

IrishEyes on August 27, 2014 at 2:24 PM

What is with these Hot Air pages lately? Multiple auto-run videos start locking up even scrolling. Come on!

IrishEyes on August 27, 2014 at 2:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3