Points to Ponder:
'My country, right or wrong,’ is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.’ [GK Chesterton]
Saturday, July 11, 2020
Briefly on "Traditionalist Critiques":
This is in response to the following statement which was seen on social media earlier in the year.
There are exactly two (and only two) strong arguments from the traditionalist camp and they rarely focus on either as much as they should. Those arguments involve aesthetics: the two chief weaknesses of the ordinary form contingent as a rule. The first is church architecture. The second is church music. If trads spent most of their time developing those areas and not wasting time on subjective nonsense, they would get further with most folks than they usually do. Well that and ceasing the spiritually immature bile{1} that tends if unchecked to propagate their enclaves over time of course.
Note:
{1} I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings... [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2004) as cited in a Rerum Novarum Vault Posting (circa July 18, 2018)]
This is in response to the following statement which was seen on social media earlier in the year.
[T]here are...quasi- or semi- or crypto-trads, people who intellectually or emotionally agree with traditionalist critiques of the modern situation, but for one reason or another stick it out in the novus ordo paradigmVirtually all traditionalist critiques are facile and ignore underlying causes in favour of focusing on symptoms. They also usually manifest a shocking degree of spiritual immaturity and ignorance of traditional Catholic spiritual principles in practice even if some may know of them in theory.
There are exactly two (and only two) strong arguments from the traditionalist camp and they rarely focus on either as much as they should. Those arguments involve aesthetics: the two chief weaknesses of the ordinary form contingent as a rule. The first is church architecture. The second is church music. If trads spent most of their time developing those areas and not wasting time on subjective nonsense, they would get further with most folks than they usually do. Well that and ceasing the spiritually immature bile{1} that tends if unchecked to propagate their enclaves over time of course.
Note:
{1} I agree with you that the concern that animates their positions is important. However, a lot of it is simply a lack of spiritual maturity on their side -something I made note of in many of my writings... [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa May 7, 2004) as cited in a Rerum Novarum Vault Posting (circa July 18, 2018)]
Friday, July 10, 2020
On the Inexorable Path of the Intransigent Traditionalist:
My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
This is pretty straightforward...he...Cardinal Burke...bishop Schneider...Cardinal Brandmueller and others need to sit down and write a serious plan on how to go forward and then submit it to Francis...and if he won’t listen, to his successor...
In other words they would appeal "from a pope ill informed to a pope better informed"?
absolutely. Its clear Benedict felt it was manipulated. Francis might not. He's clearly wrong if he doesn't think it was. A successor not formed during and right after would likely agree.
My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
This is pretty straightforward...he...Cardinal Burke...bishop Schneider...Cardinal Brandmueller and others need to sit down and write a serious plan on how to go forward and then submit it to Francis...and if he won’t listen, to his successor...
In other words they would appeal "from a pope ill informed to a pope better informed"?
absolutely. Its clear Benedict felt it was manipulated. Francis might not. He's clearly wrong if he doesn't think it was. A successor not formed during and right after would likely agree.
You do realize you have just sided with Fr. Martin Luther against Pope Leo X right? (I used the words of Luther's appeal against Leo nearly verbatim.)
You would do well to think long and hard about this and not just delete my follow up and pretend it did not happen. This is how schism is cultivated my friend. Seriously.
Monday, July 06, 2020
When doing a quick archival search for something I had previously stated, I discovered the posting it was in had a number of formatting glitches that somehow was overlooked in the compositional and revision stages prior to final publication.
I took a few minutes and did a quick scan and made about a dozen fixes to the text. Most of them were minor but annoying oversights but three were more significant including two bits of discoloured font that got missed in reformatting including half of a paragraph long footnote. I also discovered a uniformity glitch in my footnotes so I changed one word to fix it.
Anyway, all these changes have been published and here is the new hopefully fully deglitched version of a piece I believe is among the most (if not the most) important I have done in two decades plus of web writings.{1} Without further ado...
On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020)
Note:
{1} The above piece of writing is one that is so significant that it pre-emptively beget three prefatory spinoff pieces composed of material edited out of the piece during revisions (but linked to it in various places later on) as well as a subsequent clarification and retraction piece. The latter can be read here:
On Clarifying and Retracting Some Prior Statements on the Magisterium (circa March 8, 2020)
The most significant of three former pieces can be read here:
On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)
I took a few minutes and did a quick scan and made about a dozen fixes to the text. Most of them were minor but annoying oversights but three were more significant including two bits of discoloured font that got missed in reformatting including half of a paragraph long footnote. I also discovered a uniformity glitch in my footnotes so I changed one word to fix it.
Anyway, all these changes have been published and here is the new hopefully fully deglitched version of a piece I believe is among the most (if not the most) important I have done in two decades plus of web writings.{1} Without further ado...
On the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, Obedience, and the Requirements of Faithful Catholics (circa February 26, 2020)
Note:
{1} The above piece of writing is one that is so significant that it pre-emptively beget three prefatory spinoff pieces composed of material edited out of the piece during revisions (but linked to it in various places later on) as well as a subsequent clarification and retraction piece. The latter can be read here:
On Clarifying and Retracting Some Prior Statements on the Magisterium (circa March 8, 2020)
The most significant of three former pieces can be read here:
On Magisterial Interpretation (circa January 4, 2020)
Sunday, July 05, 2020
Tuesday, June 30, 2020
This is a response to the following posting. My words are in regular font.
Shawn, a fine is not a tax.
You are forgetting a few things. For example, that if the court is asked to decide between two possible readings and one of those readings will save an statute from unconstitutionality, they will as a rule go with the one that saves the statute. This principle of American constitutional law goes back explicitly to at least the days of Joseph Story who sat on the Marshall Court and who wrote in one of his decisions that "[n]o court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution."{1} Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the same point a century later writing "the rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act."{2} For "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."{3} None of this is new.
As for your claim a fine is not a tax, you obviously are not familiar with The Child Labour Cases most notably Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co{4} where the Court determined that a purported tax levied by the statute was actually a penalty disguised as a tax. Also applicable here is the License Tax Cases{5} where the Court held that fees assessed by federal licencees for selling lottery and alcohol products were permissible under the federal taxing power despite their classification as a "fee."{6} And in New York v. United States (1992), the Court upheld as a tax something referred to not as a tax but instead as a "surcharge." For as the Court explained in the syllabus of yet another case, "[a]n exaction which in reality is a penalty cannot be converted into a tax by so naming it; its purpose and operation determine its character."{7}
In other words, your simplistic unsubstantiated assertion does not stand.
Notes:
{1} Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830)
{2} Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927)
{3} Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895)
{4} Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)
{5} License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 462 462 (1866)
{6} Which is in essence what you are claiming above.
{7} United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)
Shawn, a fine is not a tax.
You are forgetting a few things. For example, that if the court is asked to decide between two possible readings and one of those readings will save an statute from unconstitutionality, they will as a rule go with the one that saves the statute. This principle of American constitutional law goes back explicitly to at least the days of Joseph Story who sat on the Marshall Court and who wrote in one of his decisions that "[n]o court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution."{1} Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes made the same point a century later writing "the rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act."{2} For "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality."{3} None of this is new.
As for your claim a fine is not a tax, you obviously are not familiar with The Child Labour Cases most notably Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co{4} where the Court determined that a purported tax levied by the statute was actually a penalty disguised as a tax. Also applicable here is the License Tax Cases{5} where the Court held that fees assessed by federal licencees for selling lottery and alcohol products were permissible under the federal taxing power despite their classification as a "fee."{6} And in New York v. United States (1992), the Court upheld as a tax something referred to not as a tax but instead as a "surcharge." For as the Court explained in the syllabus of yet another case, "[a]n exaction which in reality is a penalty cannot be converted into a tax by so naming it; its purpose and operation determine its character."{7}
In other words, your simplistic unsubstantiated assertion does not stand.
Notes:
{1} Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830)
{2} Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927)
{3} Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895)
{4} Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922)
{5} License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 5 Wall. 462 462 (1866)
{6} Which is in essence what you are claiming above.
{7} United States v. Constantine, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)
On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:
This is a further response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font.
I think doing away with qualified immunity makes cops prey to ambulance chasing lawyers. They don’t need to have evidence to begin a lawsuit and bankrupt cops who don’t make a whole lot of money to begin with. If there is clear evidence of misconduct, that’s another thing.
Besides, is this something Congress ought to be focusing a lot of energy on? Where’s the evidence of systemic police brutality and abuse?
On qualified immunity...
Qualified immunity hinders the protection of civil rights in a number of ways:
1. First and foremost, qualified immunity means that victims of brutality or harassment by law enforcement generally get no relief in court and have no ability to hold offending officers accountable for their actions. That means the officers who commit the brutality and harassment—and the governments that employ them—have little incentive to improve their practices and follow the law. This undermines safety and justice for everyone, and particularly for people of color or vulnerable people who are most likely to be the target of police misconduct.
2. Qualified immunity doesn’t just reduce a person’s chance for victory in a civil rights lawsuit; it means many claims will never be brought to court in the first place. As part of a civil rights law passed in 1976, Congress tried to create an incentive for lawyers to represent victims in civil rights actions and ensure that constitutional rights are safeguarded. To do so, Congress guaranteed that lawyers who represent victims in successful civil rights actions would be able to recover the cost of their time. A huge number of lawyers who bring civil rights actions rely on this law or on the possibility of contingency fees in the event they succeed.
But when a case is dismissed based on qualified immunity, the victim loses and attorneys are not able to recover the fees for their work. Thus, as a result of the Supreme Court’s aggressive defense of qualified immunity, victims of civil rights violations may be less likely to find a lawyer who is willing to represent them and suits will not be brought in the first place.
3. Qualified immunity freezes constitutional law. As mentioned previously, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a victim must show that law enforcement violated “clearly established” law by pointing to a case arising in the same context and involving the same conduct. This has given courts a shortcut to resolving cases: Instead of reviewing, analyzing, and applying constitutional doctrine to determine whether a person’s rights were violated, a court can instead simply say that there has been no sufficiently similar case in the past. The result is that fewer courts ever resolve constitutional issues, and constitutional rights are hardly ever “clearly established.”
This shortcut has led to some outrageous results. In an opinion filed in March 2019, for instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that officers were immune from liability for the deliberate stealing of property simply because there was no “clearly established” case law governing the circumstances. In that case, police officers who had executed a search warrant seized about $275,000 in property: approximately $150,000 in cash, and another $125,000 in rare coins, but stated that they had seized only $50,000. In other words, the officers attempted to steal $225,000 while on the job.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit against the officers, granting qualified immunity because it had “never before addressed” whether officers executing a warrant could steal property. And, according to the court, it was not sufficiently “obvious” to police officers that stealing property under the guise of executing a search warrant violated an individual’s constitutional rights. As a result, the Ninth Circuit said that it “need not” even address whether the officers’ stealing was illegal.
This example should show the degree to which qualified immunity opens the door for wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement. No reasonable officer needs a case to tell them that stealing property is wrong. But it’s worse than that. Because the court did not say that the conduct was illegal, the law is still not clearly established that officers may not deliberately steal property when exercising a search. So an officer could, again, claim immunity for the same behavior.
As Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett described this phenomenon: Victims of abuse “must produce precedent even as fewer courts are producing precedent. Important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered. Courts then rely on that judicial silence to conclude there’s no equivalent case on the books. No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability.” In other words, Judge Willett said, “Heads defendants win, tails plaintiffs lose.” [LINK]
Thursday, June 25, 2020
On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:
This is a further response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font
Shawn, oh, and by the way, I think cops who commit crimes should be themselves
Then what was your objection to the original status?
Shawn, I didn’t make an objection to your original status per se, although I don’t know if I would be 100% onboard with 3every point. Nor do I believe this should be federal issue. States and cities should make those calls.]
You do realize that these are all areas that were aggravated by federal legislation and federal courts right? It makes it very tough to have states and cities make the calls when the feds overrule it anyway. But that is neither here nor there.
Of the seven points listed, which ones do you have a problem with and why?
This is a further response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font
Shawn, oh, and by the way, I think cops who commit crimes should be themselves
Then what was your objection to the original status?
Shawn, I didn’t make an objection to your original status per se, although I don’t know if I would be 100% onboard with 3every point. Nor do I believe this should be federal issue. States and cities should make those calls.]
You do realize that these are all areas that were aggravated by federal legislation and federal courts right? It makes it very tough to have states and cities make the calls when the feds overrule it anyway. But that is neither here nor there.
Of the seven points listed, which ones do you have a problem with and why?
Tuesday, June 23, 2020
On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:
This is a further response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font.
Apples and oranges? “unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff”
Boy, your cop hatred is as obsessive as I suspected.
When you do not blow cops and place them on an untouchable pedestal, you have a more realist and less fairytale view.
This is a further response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
The first installments in this series can be read HERE, HERE, and HERE. My words will be in regular font.
Apples and oranges? “unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff”
Boy, your cop hatred is as obsessive as I suspected.
When you do not blow cops and place them on an untouchable pedestal, you have a more realist and less fairytale view.
Saturday, June 20, 2020
Briefly on Pope Francis and Traditional Spiritual Instruction:
My words will be in regular font.
My words will be in regular font.
he’s repeatedly used words that lend one to think he believes in impanation or consubstantiation..
Only if you presume what he is saying must be unorthodox because he does not use specific words you want him to use or because your judgment is formed by an presuppositional inclination against him. St. Francis de Sales counseled against "people whose judgment is solely formed by inclination; who always think well of those they like, and ill of those they dislike." This principle applies to the words and actions of others. As Fr. Quadrupani noted in an eighteenth century spiritual instruction to devout souls referencing St Francis de Sales:
"Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable one will just as certainly choose the worst."This principle also made it into the CCC in the section on the eighth commandment and violations thereof (CCC 2478).
can you find similar words before 1965?
It would not matter if I could or could not. But if you want words "prior to 1965" for some arbitrary reason, the words of Quadrupani are from 1795 and the words of de Sales are from 1619.
On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:
This is a further response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
The first installments in this series can be read HERE and HERE. My words will be in regular font.
Shawn, wait a second. You gonna tell me that the assassination of a president, governor, or mayor is not going to be more vigorously prosecuted than a drive-by shooting?
Apples and oranges. There is a qualitative difference between a democratically elected chief executive and some unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff.
Same principle applies, albeit to a lesser extent, to law enforcement for the simple reason that these occupations represent security beyond just themselves.
Geez, the photo from earlier was more on point with you than I thought.
This is a further response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
The first installments in this series can be read HERE and HERE. My words will be in regular font.
Shawn, wait a second. You gonna tell me that the assassination of a president, governor, or mayor is not going to be more vigorously prosecuted than a drive-by shooting?
Apples and oranges. There is a qualitative difference between a democratically elected chief executive and some unelected tin badge wearing authoritah jackoff.
Same principle applies, albeit to a lesser extent, to law enforcement for the simple reason that these occupations represent security beyond just themselves.
Geez, the photo from earlier was more on point with you than I thought.
7 Times John Roberts Was A Leftist Hack
Briefly...
1) The clownservatard right were the ones engaging in judicial activism by refusing to sever the mandate in NFIB v Sebilius and instead pretending it could not be severed (which was a lie) all so they could try and strike down an entire statute. This was blatant judicial activism of the sort clownservatards claimed they abhorred. Except it is not true. Because when supposed "conservatives" think they can get away with it, they will curb kick all that talk about originalism and judicial restraint. Hypocrites.
2) This was a basic move of the sort the court often does when there is a case in the pipeline on the same matter awaiting a lower court ruling. That the author sought to use it as one of her examples shows she is really straining to build her list.
3) Now she is bitching about a Roberts' concurrence in a 9-0 court case? Sad and pathetic reaching yet again.
4) The decision here actually was a proper utilization of the Administrative Practices Act. Wilbur Ross' agency screwed up by giving a less than reasonable reason for the addition so it was an example of doing the right thing for the wrong stated reasons. For those who do not give a damn about procedure and only want their chosen end result, they will of course not care.
5) So one complaint she had is during the President Trump impeachment trial, the presiding chief justice refused to engage in right wing political bullshit preferring to focus on the real issue at hand? Yeah, that is such hackery whereas nothing Rand Paul was doing was grandstanding hackish bs? Bitch, please.
6) Gorsuch wrote the opinion and Roberts is being blamed for this one? Boy are we desperate now.
7) Ok, finally we get a legitimate gripe rather than political hackery. What one president puts in place with pure executive authority should be just as easily be removed by another president. So yeah, Roberts blew it on this one.
So of her seven examples, only one really holds water.
Briefly...
1) The clownservatard right were the ones engaging in judicial activism by refusing to sever the mandate in NFIB v Sebilius and instead pretending it could not be severed (which was a lie) all so they could try and strike down an entire statute. This was blatant judicial activism of the sort clownservatards claimed they abhorred. Except it is not true. Because when supposed "conservatives" think they can get away with it, they will curb kick all that talk about originalism and judicial restraint. Hypocrites.
2) This was a basic move of the sort the court often does when there is a case in the pipeline on the same matter awaiting a lower court ruling. That the author sought to use it as one of her examples shows she is really straining to build her list.
3) Now she is bitching about a Roberts' concurrence in a 9-0 court case? Sad and pathetic reaching yet again.
4) The decision here actually was a proper utilization of the Administrative Practices Act. Wilbur Ross' agency screwed up by giving a less than reasonable reason for the addition so it was an example of doing the right thing for the wrong stated reasons. For those who do not give a damn about procedure and only want their chosen end result, they will of course not care.
5) So one complaint she had is during the President Trump impeachment trial, the presiding chief justice refused to engage in right wing political bullshit preferring to focus on the real issue at hand? Yeah, that is such hackery whereas nothing Rand Paul was doing was grandstanding hackish bs? Bitch, please.
6) Gorsuch wrote the opinion and Roberts is being blamed for this one? Boy are we desperate now.
7) Ok, finally we get a legitimate gripe rather than political hackery. What one president puts in place with pure executive authority should be just as easily be removed by another president. So yeah, Roberts blew it on this one.
So of her seven examples, only one really holds water.
Thursday, June 18, 2020
We must always put the best construction that we can upon what we see our neighbour do. In doubtful matters, we ought to persuade ourselves that what we noticed is not bad, but that it is our imperfections that cause such a thought to arise in our minds; that thus we may avoid rash judgments, which are a very dangerous evil, and for which we ought to have a sovereign detestation. In cases clearly wrong, we ought to have compassion for our neighbour, and humble ourselves for his defects as if they were our own, and pray God for his amend ment with the same heart we should for our own, were we subject to the same defects. [St. Francis de Sales]
On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:
This is a further response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
The first installment in this series can be read HERE. My words will be in regular font.
Shawn, I have made no excuses whatsoever for police misconduct. And no, it is not an Animal Farm view of things to believe that violent crimes against law enforcement should be prosecuted with even more vigor. It’s not because they are better than anyone else, but for the reason I state above, that is killing cops makes a community more vulnerable. In other words, to BETTER PROTECT A COMMUNITY!!! Woke Shawn refuses to understand the simple logic of deterrence there.
As far as the death penalty is concerned, you know I’m one of the most pro-death penalty folks around for the capital murder of civilians,
Equality under the law should not be a mindless slogan. But just as leftists love to namedrop Dr. King while not bothering to listen to what he said, folks like yourself pay lip service to the notion of being "a nation of laws" and "equality under the law" to create special exemption preserves for some groups of people. In short, "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." In a nutshell: Animal Farm.
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
On Law Enforcement Reform And Conservative Intransigence:
This was a response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
My words will be in regular font.
This should be a two way street. 1) If you mouth off to a cop (tell him to fuck off, call him a pig etc.)in the performance of his duties (traffic stops etc.) you should at least spend the night in jail. When I was growing up, a cop whipped your ass if you mouthed off and no one said shit about it. This was especially true with cops in the suburbs.
2) If you try to physically attack a cop on duty, it should be a felony if it isn’t already. If you happen to get a concussion in the process, tough shit!
3) Murder of a police officer should be an automatic federal death penalty-eligible offense. Since we are treating the Tenth Amendment as dead letter, might as well do it in favor of the good guys once in a while.
There is a difference between wanting effective law enforcement that respects the constitutional and civil rights of those they are supposed to serve and blowing the cops while making excuses for inexcusable violations of constitutional and civil rights with an Animal Farm view of things. Maybe someday you will realize this.
This was a response on social media to the following material:
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform
My words will be in regular font.
This should be a two way street. 1) If you mouth off to a cop (tell him to fuck off, call him a pig etc.)in the performance of his duties (traffic stops etc.) you should at least spend the night in jail. When I was growing up, a cop whipped your ass if you mouthed off and no one said shit about it. This was especially true with cops in the suburbs.
2) If you try to physically attack a cop on duty, it should be a felony if it isn’t already. If you happen to get a concussion in the process, tough shit!
3) Murder of a police officer should be an automatic federal death penalty-eligible offense. Since we are treating the Tenth Amendment as dead letter, might as well do it in favor of the good guys once in a while.
There is a difference between wanting effective law enforcement that respects the constitutional and civil rights of those they are supposed to serve and blowing the cops while making excuses for inexcusable violations of constitutional and civil rights with an Animal Farm view of things. Maybe someday you will realize this.
Monday, June 15, 2020
Seven Ideas For Law Enforcement Reform:
1) Abolish civil asset forfeiture
2) Make falsifying a police report a felony
3) End qualified immunity
4) End no knock warrants
5) End warrantless searches
6) Make intentionally turning off a police body camera to conceal evidence a felony
7) Require at least a year's training for police officers before they are allowed to go armed into a community.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)