Massive Demand to
Lock Up the Innocent
in a Democracy
Florida Supreme Court
Innocence Commission
Embarrassing Charade
The Myth That
Burns Our Cities
Mock Trials and the
Common Mediocrity
of History
Coerced Jailhouse
Confession Witness
Satanic Scam
New York Police
and Justice Reforms
Legislative Concepts
and Proposals
Attorney General
William Barr is a
Sick Retard
Debating with the
Law-and-Order Mob
Letters to my
Justice without Fraud
Challenge to Republicans
Running for Office
Voters Give Police
A Mandate To Lie
Republican Cop Cult
Disconnects from Reality
Mass Incarceration
Worse than Immigration
for Republicans
2020 Election
Newt Gingrich
Republican Fossils
Timeline of Destruction
of the Republican Party
Criminal Guilt
Determined Socially
Guilty Until
Proven Innocent
Quick History of
Police Misconduct
Intellectual Dishonesty
In Defense of Perjury
Is A Vice
Real Justice
Crosley Green
Common Cause of
False Convictions
Embarrassed Cop Setup
John Alberto Torres
Supports Replacing
Juries With Politicians
False Prophet
Ann Coulter
Sheriff Wayne Ivey's
Political Activism
and Ideology
Jailhouse Witnesses
Release Two
To Convict One
T-Shirt Artwork
Contact Info
About Site



Brevard County Sheriff Wayne "Heehaw" Ivey's Bizarre Dehumanization Propaganda

We are all familiar with how Sheriff Ivey commended his employees for excellent work hogtying Gregory Edwards, and leaving him to suffocate like a fish.

And we are familiar with how Sheriff Ivey lied to say his employee was threatened, when he shot some teenagers like fish in a barrel.

There is no doubt that his ability to get away with this, is associated with his bizarre dehumanization propaganda called "Fishing for Fugitives".

This sort of portrayal of people as animals had been considered deeply immoral for at least 60 years.

How Sheriff Heehaw gets away with it today, is a testament to the benighted white trazz social climbers and office monkeys that inhabit Brevard County.

There is no justice in Brevard. The sheriffs office is full of snakes. Sheriff Wayne Ivey is no good!!

There is no demand from the public. I have had two different jobs in Melbourne, working with white high-paid engineers. Some had been arrested, one even had a friend commit suicide to avoid a court date. But they don't see that these black kids getting shot could be related in any way to whether they will get honest treatment from police. They don't connect that a cop could lie about them someday. It is like drunk driving. Reckless sheriff voting.

I stand with Ivey, never had problem with him or his deputies. Guess cause I stay out of trouble!!!!

LOL. I know when cops lie, it is a direct and inevitable consequence of other people's poor life decisions. It doesn't bother you that Ivey lies to you? It doesn't bother you that he lied about what happened to Gregory Edwards, or about whether that psychotic felon cop who killed the teenagers was threatened, and whether the car was stolen?

You don't ask Ivey to tell you the truth, because you trust that he will murder undesirables, but not you. Until he does it to a member of your family. Then you would say "my eyes were opened" and you would join the minority. And other people like you would say "Vickie was a dirtbag, her kids got what was coming to them." Even if every bit of it was lies. Nobody else like you will care when you complain about the loss of a family member, defended using lies.

These were EXTREMELY serious issues for the founders of our country, who knew that trying to "stay out of trouble" is a hopeless mirage, when someone else decides to take your life and lie about you for votes. Why say all that crazy stuff about "all men are created equal" or "nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? Why do you think our Founding Fathers didn't just write a simpler proclamation "We will get along with the King and his soldiers if everyone just stays out of trouble"?

I guess if everyone whom police kill is guilty of a capital offence, you would recommend saving the taxpayer money by getting rid of judges and trials? Honestly, do you want to get rid of trials? Do you just want cops to be able to write your sentence on a police report, and maybe it will be death? Because it won't be a problem for you, since you can just "stay out of trouble"? That must be your position.

Your "guesses" are not the thoughts of a serious person. They are the recklessness of a person with no civic responsibility, and no concern for the casual death of citizens. Because you naively guess it is not a serious issue when teenagers lose their lives, and it doesn't affect you.

Maybe you don't have family members. But if you have kids, one day they may have a roommate. And your kid may get a text from his roommate "open the door because Joe is coming over to pick something up." And Joe will get a $20 bag of heroin out of your child's roommate's drawer. And then OD and die. And Wayne Ivey will post a mugshot of your kid hanging like a fish, and say he is an evil heroin dealer whose life is worth nothing. And Wayne Ivey will threaten other heroin dealers in the jail with life in prison, if they don't swear your kid was the known heroin dealer. And you will never see your kid again, except through glass.

There are a dozen other ways it could happen. If nobody stops the sheriff from lying, the sheriff could run you over drunk. And he will say Vickie attacked me, she was coming at me in a threatening way. Vickie was being reckless, there was nothing I could do. And everyone will believe him, or not even care. Because you should have stayed out of trouble, and that drunk sheriff would not have been forced to run you over. It will be your own poor life decisions according to Ivey, and nobody will care.

racism is no more than fear of the unknown

Aren't you one of these people who thinks black kids in the inner city are bad at math?

Word problem: Suppose there are some people who are above the law, who can shoot and kill anyone they want with no consequence. They can stage evidence on you after you are dead. They can lie to cover it up, and there is nobody to investigate them. But usually they don't even have to lie.

What do you do when you see one of these most dangerous people coming, who are bound by no law?

Do you run, or stand there and let them shoot you?

If you get this question wrong, you die. Or even if you get it right, you still might die.

So it is a death sentence for kids who are bad at word problems.

guess they should have followed orders and they would be here!!!

Would you vote for a politician who ran on a platform of shooting teenagers in cars that looked like stolen cars? Would you expect that politician to win?

Do you really want your party to put a politician up there who advocates "Russian Simon Says"? Where cops can run up to random teenagers and start shouting at them, and if your kids get confused they get shot?

Do you want more convicted felons, in the midst of psychotic life crises, hired as deputies?

Do you want a politician who runs on a platform of killing everyone who is afraid of cops? Even if they are not reasonably suspected to be involved in a crime?

I voted for Ivey and I will continue to vote for him as long as he runs for office!!!! If you are told to stop then you stop!!!! Scared or not!!!! You follow the orders given.

You run the risk, that one day a deputy will accidentally kill you or a family member, or falsely accuse you. And then other citizens like you, will approve of everything they did to you being covered up with lies. The police will lie and say it was your own poor life decisions.

But I know, you have the simple mind of a teenager. A teenager would say "I am fine driving a hundred miles per hour, because I know this road. Nothing bad has ever happened to me driving one hundred miles an hour. So I am going to continue driving a hundred miles an hour. That bad stuff happens to other people, because they are not as good drivers as me." And then something happens, and you grow up. But a lot of times it is too late.

It is like a whole county of people with the minds of teenagers, who don't see the dangers in things. Lawyers always laugh how parents suddenly change their politics, when police victimize their kids unfairly. But then it is too late. Pride comes before a fall. Or a fall will come, even to those who are not proud. Or maybe some idiot will go through life clueless and lucky, and that person will make an uneducated and irresponsible voter.

I'm far from being a teenager!!! But you think what you want. I don’t worry about be killed by a cop, I follow orders. If you make a bad choice you pay for that choice!! You calling all cops liars is ridiculous!!! Yes there are bad cops as good, so don’t go there with all cops are liars!! Everyone lies but the person who committed the crime!!

I would think that at the very least, you would want a sheriff you like, to behave in a way that doesn't result in thousands of other people working to put your favorite sheriff out of office. Are the opinions of your neighbors legitimate? If thousands of people don't like the sheriff shooting teenagers, are they allowed to vote? And if other voters don't like what the sheriff is doing, and it causes you to lose your favorite sheriff, would you ask your favorite sheriff to change his ways so that other people don't vote him out?

Because I promise you, I will work every day of my life to put Sheriff Ivey out of office for killing those teenagers. And it will cost Sheriff Ivey a lot of money and work to overcome people like me. In the end, you may lose your preferred sheriff over it. Have you ever considered, as an alternative, giving consideration to the values and preferences of your neighbors in a democracy, that their kids not be shot? Is it too much to consider the different preferences of your neighbors, that their teenage children not be shot?

Do you really want to go into an election, the people who want their neighbors' kids to be shot supporting one candidate, against the neighbors who don't want their kids to be shot supporting another candidate?

Can we at least agree that it is a hard road, politically, for people who want their neighbors' kids to be shot? Or at least they make their road harder than it needs to be, when measured against whatever little benefit you get from insisting on shooting your neighbors' kids? What is the benefit of shooting these kids, and starting a political fight with their parents? And then if you lose, what is the benefit of doing the same thing and expecting a different result? I can think of loftier goals for government, than to create conflict with your neighbors by shooting their kids.

Do we agree that your neighbors have a right to say they don't want their kids to get shot? And can voters dictate what police do? Do police need the consent of the citizens, is that where their authority derives from? Or does their authority derive from God, or from just some citizens, where the consent of other citizens is not necessary? Would it be enough, for example, for 51% of the citizens to tell police to shoot the other 49%? Is the right of voters to consent to police shooting their neighbors limited in any way? What is the right of voters to complain about what police do?

let's put it this way, I am not a sheriff nor deputy if you come onto my property, break (trespass) into my home and threaten me in any way or my family I will warn you while I call 911 if you do not leave and proceed to come at me will I shoot you??? Neighbor kid or not!!! Those kids did not follow orders the video shows they seen the cops. If a gun is pointing at you and they yelled 8x’s more or less they heard the cops say stop then you stop!!! Until FDLE comes out with the findings and it is found the cop involved was wrong then he should be fired and put on trial!!


I recently saw I think an email alerting me to a tweet, that Governor DeSantis would be signing new anti-riot legislation sent by Speaker Chris Sprowls and the legislature. Whatever it was, it was deemed to be sufficiently informative that I could decide whether these politicians were improving Florida and should get my vote in the next election. I don't know what the actual details of the law are. But if it is anything like past legislation discussed for rioting or looting, or Republicans in general, I can guess it involves some combination of shooting people, running people over, and putting people in prison.

It struck me what kind of people must DeSantis and Sprowls imagine they are, that they can find such low-hanging fruit to improve the lives of Floridians, through a simple formula of shooting, imprisoning, and running over? Like how easy is it to just say hey, we should relax the laws on homicide with these specific details, and it is just that easy to come up with a steady stream of ways to improve people's lives? After a year of this, these elected officials will surely have us all living in utopia, or will have cured all the flaws of mankind.

I immediately thought of the recent vaccine trials, and how important it was to prove the vaccines were effective, and not harmful, before giving them to any number of people. Like first they gave them to just a few people, to make sure they didn't get sick from the vaccine. And if that worked out, after a while they could try it on a larger group of people. And there were some criteria, like it had to prevent the virus in at least 50% of people. And it had to be not more harmful than other vaccines, or the virus itself. And if some people got sick from the vaccine, or if something weird or unexpected happen like in Australia where some patients tested positive for AIDS, they immediately shut it down to examine what was happening.

There is nothing like that in the legislative process. Sprowls and DeSantis and their voters just assume they are extraordinary men, who can come up with a formula with more benefits than harmful side effects on the first try. If the consequences of the legislation turn out to do more harm than good, there is no instant shutdown trigger. There is not even proposed a way to measure the harm and good the legislation is doing. And even if there were, surely politicians with pride on the line would attack anyone trying to discredit the results of their legislation. Or they would change the claimed purpose of the legislation, redefining what it was supposed to accomplish, to claim it was still a success measured in a different way.

Finally they would say at least the legislation proves we care about people, we are trying. The legislation proved our sincere intent to improve the lives of Floridians, and that is enough to win your vote. We are at least enacting the will of the voters, who believe some number of people are bad and need to be shot to reduce the number of bad people. So we are at least being faithful to the general principles, the philosophy of the voters, even if it just resulted in more people getting shot. There was never any control group, to see if there was actually any less looting than in the half of the state that didn't get the law. This would be like just shooting random stuff into people's arms to prevent the virus, and saying "At least our heart is in the right place."

Like suppose the law says you can shoot people who try to loot your store, with no punishment for murder. In theory, nobody might get shot. It might be a deterrent, so that nobody even tries looting. Even if there is no looting currently, this would still be a safe cure. But what if in some percentage of instances, people use the law as an excuse to shoot people in the street whom they disagree with politically, and then drag their bodies a few feet to into the doorway, to claim they were looting? Now we would want to know how much looting was there before and after the law, to weigh it against how many dead people before and after. Or we would want to at least know if the people who got shot supported our political opponents.

Or suppose it is just too complicated for police to sort out, whether a homicide should be allowed under the new law in a given instance. Like in some instances the police might be friends with the store owner, and will write it up as a good kill even 10 feet from the door. Or in other instances, the person who got killed might be a niece of a cop's friend. In that case the store owner might be convicted of murder, even if the looter was in the store carrying merchandise. In all instances it will fill the courts up for decades, neglect other murder and theft cases, and ruin the lives and finances of shopkeepers, families of the accused, and taxpayers. All that needs to be weighed against the reduction in looting, and the original criteria for success, promised in the law.

But none of that honest quantitative measurement of the results will ever happen, or even be proposed, or even considered remotely necessary. Unlike the vaccine, these laws can literally result in people being run over and killed for 20 years, perhaps without any benefit. And it will be up to the voters to suffer being shot and run over, and being dragged to court and sitting in prison for shooting people and running them over, to decide the law had ill effects. At the end of it, at least half of people will hate policemen, on top of already hating shopkeepers and rioters. And all the while, the party that wrote the law will continue to insist it did more good than harm. They can never admit any outcome is proof they are bad or imperfect people, lacking infinite wisdom.

Finally after 50 years, the original authors of the law will be long gone without ever paying a price. Everyone will hate the party who used them as guinea pigs for this false cure for 50 years. But the core constituents of the party will never nominate anyone who threatens to take away their right to kill bad people in any situation. And everyone else will literally vote for communists, to get some relief from the vehicular-homicide-cop-court-murder-prison-politician-utopia, that was designed instantly based on a theory, without any criteria, control group, or shutdown mechanism, other than 50 years of misery and political conflict.

Whatever grand designs "thou shalt not kill" and "first do no harm" may deprive you of, they at least result in less work for lawyers.

Florida Republicans File Anti-Rioting Bill in Wake of Capitol Protests: "We're Not Going to Tolerate It"

It would be simpler if they just passed a bill to arrest the bad people, regardless.






yes but leftist judges will define "Bad People" as anyone with traditional American Values

They will have to give power of arrest to the social workers.


The Daily Beast reported that Tucker Carlson was pushing back on this political characterization of "white supremacists", asking what is this white supremacist that they are talking about?

As a white Republican, the best definition I can come up with, is by comparing the current state of our party to the sort of intellectual ideals put forth by our greatest philosophers, Hayek and Sowell. My definition of "white supremacist" is somewhat related to how George Soros, and Jewish Democrats in general, probably see and fear white people.

Near the beginning of "The Road to Serfdom" I believe it was, Hayek wrote a passage that went something like:

"We can all agree that a centrally planned economy in England would be slightly different, and perhaps less murderous than one in Germany." (I hope to find this quote later.)

One thing this passage mentions, is the popular idea in Britain during the war, that Germans were uniquely genetically vicious. Britons imagined a centrally planned economy in Britain or Italy would be much less murderous. In essence, it is a belief in the moral superiority of the people of a certain race, culture, or nation. If Germans were allowed to shoot anyone who stepped on their lawn, they would shoot Jewish people. But the English are much more sensible, and we would reserve our shooting only for people who truly posed a threat to us.

This idea of good and bad people is directly contradictory to the ideas which Sowell calls the tragic view of man. In the tragic view of man, all men are equally evil. They will all do evil any time they can hope to gain an advantage from it. And it is the incentives and constraints of political systems and institutions, not their genetic or moral character, that dictate the behavior of men.

Sowell's view includes Adam Smith's idea that the baker bakes bread not because he is generous, but because he is greedy. The incentive for profit, will compel muslims, jews, and christians to bake bread equally. Sowell's view is also reflected in simple criminology, which assumes that muslims, jews, and christians are equally rational hedonists, and will all be equally deterred from murder by the threat of a death sentence.

Near the beginning of "Knowledge and Decisions", Sowell expresses this with a passage something like:

"The challenge is not replacing the bad people with the good people, but in structuring the institutions of government so as to incentivize good and deter bad behavior". (I hope to find this quote later.)

So what is "white supremacy"? White supremacy in the United States today, is the novel belief among Republicans, that we are in a battle between good and evil people. Not just a debate between good and bad political ideas and economic systems. It is the end of a long journey from the sort of dorky economics of Milton Friedman, to the cultural populism of Michael "Savage" Wiener. I remember first listening to Michael Wiener on the radio in San Francisco in the mid 1990's, and thinking this guy is a socialist!

Whatever other complexities the current mainstream views of Republicans may bring along, one of the side effects is a devaluing of the life of the set of people considered evil. When you look at good and bad people instead of good and bad political and economic systems and institutions, you inadvertently create enemies and untermenschen. These are people whom our great society would be better off without, with more prosperity if they were dead or in prison.

For more than 200 years, people on the right believed those on the left were well-intentioned, but naive and wrong. People on the left did not understand our arguments, and so they thought we were evil. And so our task was to make an intellectual argument. That suddenly changed and the Republican Party became dominated by vain people who believed in their own moral superiority, and that society could not continue unless cleansed of their opponents.

This sudden change in the character of our party and ideological conflict, perhaps resulted from the new populism of debate, when it moved to Twitter and other short-form internet forums and posting boards. Ideas are no longer presented by the intellectuals who classified and articulated and debated them, but by the followers on both sides who believe them without having the art to argue them. When two people meet on Twitter, a real estate agent and a construction worker, political and economic debate are not their life's work. They are not prepared to present the arguments which support their favored policies. They are not familiar with the debates that support or expose the flaws in the arguments of their opponents. They only know what they believe, and that the stranger taking the other side is wrong and attacked first, and is therefore evil.

So suddenly Republican politics are presented by people in comment sections who respond poorly to being called evil all day, and want to kill liberals. The results include excusing police misconduct against strangers, and losing elections. White supremacy is the point when opponents no longer try to sell their ideas to the other side, but simply to destroy the other side. It is the point when Republican political affiliation is sold in snippets with an appeal to vanity, not to longwinded logic. It is the moment when the police who do the cleansing become the heroes, instead of the businessmen who prove the worth of capitalism by providing products.

I read your name and stopped reading from then on.

I wrote a computer program that did the same thing in 1995. It learned by asking questions and listening. But to protect itself from nonsense, it ignored anyone that said things it disagreed with. So if you said abortion is bad or dolphins are bad, it stopped learning. But if you said assault weapons are bad, then it added the next thing you said to its list of word associations.

Breitbart John Nolte: Dear Gun-Grabbers, What's Best for 'Society' Is Not My Problem

Why did AJ Crooms have to get shot?

Whoever it is, it probably had it coming. Society is better off without scumulous people.

Giving up your freedom is always a way to please your fellow man. I can think of a lot of things you could do that would make my life better.

Where's your proof Proud Boys Are White Supremacists?

They are violent people who support white supremacists as an excuse to be violent. The proof the people they support are white supremacists, is in the private scale of values manifest in their arguments and policies, with no other possible explanation after extensive analysis.

From all arguments and policies, they select a contradictory subset with the common property being they justify killing black people. Example, they love the Second Amendment, but hate "handcuffing police" from the rest of the Bill of Rights. They think it is fair to shoot a black person to prevent the possibility of harm to a Karen. But they think if felons lie in court to convict innocent black defendants for harming Karens, "bah, life is unfair, there is no utopia".


Elected officials have started sending police to harass me. I have had cops go onto my property at least three times now, uninvited, and without a warrant or probable cause that a crime is in progress. Surreptitiously at first, and then announced when they realized I am aware of them. And they have sat around the block watching for my comings and goings. I am not a drug dealer, I deal in political speech.

They must have spent many hours out there watching, because I have seen them every one of the few times I have passed through. I have seen them in two different locations parked facing to see me drive by. And I see them do drive bys. How much do they pay these people a day? There is a missing girl with a poster up. But these cops have time for me. Because they work as personal soldiers for politicians who are more interested in me, because of my political activity.

It is an unfortunate situation where I have to steer clear of these most dangerous fellow humans, because they are bound by no law. They could shoot me, and it would not be like Sincere Pierce and AJ Crooms. In my case, nobody would know or care. They could lie and say I threatened them or anything else. They could stage items to incriminate me.

And as you know in Florida, their crimes are supposed to be investigated by their own department. Which means in reality they will never face any consequences for their crimes. It is desiged to be that way, specifically so that elected officicials can do what they are doing, which is use the local police in whatever way they want.

And obviously there is nobody I can call. There are no police I can call. I cannot afford to pay lawyers to follow me around with video cameras all day. And there are not even lawyers in Florida who would help. Lawyers in Florida do not go against police and politicians. Lawyers in Florida cash a check for going through the most basic motions in court in the most generic repetitive way.

So it provokes a question sitting here: Why are the citizens of Florida comfortable with cops who are not bound by the law, and who could shoot them at any time? It is because they think it is infrequent, and it won't happen to them. And they don't care if people who provoke politicians get shot, they don't perceive an urgent value for people like me, who aren't afraid of politicians. The papers would say I was a bad or dangerous person, if it suited whatever their narrative was that week, a person who forced police to shoot me as a direct and inevitable consequence of my own choices.

So here is the problem to analyze: Are Florida citizens correct and rational in their belief that they won't get shot? I believe they are not. Because I believe their risk is not in a steady state. I liken it to a stock market. Suppose stocks are at 10,000. Then they slide a little to 9,000. If they continue to slide to 8,000, people will get scared and they will become volatile. While they are volatile it is not certain whether they will drop to 7,000 or 5,000, before people become confident there are buyers, they stabilize, and pop back up to 8,000.

We are in a volatile, dynamic state of policing in the United States. The degree to which police are emboldened to shoot citizens without consequence is on the up swing, and has entered a volatile state. This is because the creation of the "Black Live Matter" movement after Ferguson, and the book "The War On Cops" by Heather Mcdonald, have created a strong political faction of people who are willing to protect police in the act of shooting anyone they want.

Even as many people are horrified by the killing of Daniel Shaver or Andre Hill or others who were not convicted of any crime, there is a proportional reaction of other people reacting to those people reacting. Even if the number of shootings by police were the same as in a previous year, clearly the political forces encouraging and opposing the freedom of police to shoot and kill, have grown and become more volatile on both sides. There is an upheaval in the political environment regulating police.

What is the direction of the current volatility and level, of the political support for police killing those who have not been convicted of a crime? When a psycho cop murders two teenagers in Florida and absolutely nothing happens, I believe that has to embolden police in Florida. So we are in a down swing, and still in the rising volatility phase. Those stocks could drop to 5,000 before citizens step in and say we don't like this. Some people will have to get shot for that to happen, and it could be you. You could get shot.

The people of Brevard County and other counties literally don't care that there is no consequence for killing Sincere and AJ. Many are in fact happy Sincere and AJ got shot, or will celebrate or promote or defend it, as a political position. Like stocks, we are in the reaction to the reaction to the reaction, in the political dynamics. And so I believe it will have to get worse, more people will have to get shot, before it gets better. In the meantime, I have cops going onto my private property against my will, at the request of elected officials, and they may shoot me, and nobody will care.

Bill introduced by St. Pete lawmaker seeks to end qualified immunity in Florida
Rep. Michele Rayner-Goolsby says she vowed to pursue equitable justice and accountability.

Ending qualified immunity is not my area of expertise. I know one argument against it, that it would raise policing costs, is not a good argument. People should be willing to pay more for a better policing product.

Universal justice is like universal healthcare. Poor people are expected to suffer the costs of bad doctors and imperfect policing, so who cares. But both rich people and Republicans should want police to do better, to keep poor people from making political decisions driven by misery. Otherwise what those poor people vote for will negatively impact rich people. Republicans don't want poor people voting for Obama and Warnock!

My own idea to improve the product, is an independent SEC-like institution in the executive branch at the state level, to compel reporting and punish reporting failures, and investigate and punish police and prosecutors proactively, not on the request of criminals or the mob.

I think ending qualified immunity will increase the insular and secretive nature of police and prosecutors, the lying, the bunker mentality. Try getting the truth out of some cops when they risk being sued! They will become such a tightly knit, defensive, criminal organization in response to their loss of immunity, there will be no choice but to make an independent institution in the executive branch to deal with them.

On the positive side, I point to the state of stock promoters, after the creation of the SEC in the 1930's. They sold more stock than ever, thanks to their reputation being protected from the worst actors among them. We even had a dotcom bubble, with petsdotcom. So improving the regulation of police, and paying them more, could result in a golden age for police, where they are held more universally with the esteem of doctors.

If you are a smart cop, a good cop, you should welcome something that improves your brand and gets you paid more.

Chris Sprowls and Governor DeSantis were promoting some new legislation that would relax prohibitions on running people over during riots. Nobody posts links to the text of the laws, because it is really just about how you feel, not the specifics. So it is useful to look at someone actually being run over in a crowd.

This was a cop who ran over some kid because he felt threatened. That is fine. DeSantis wants to make sure ordinary people can do this, not just cops. Something like this happened in New York City a few years back, when some bikers harassed an SUV, and one ended up paralyzed.

The reality is this: If that car was me, and that person who got run over was the mayor's kid, you would never see another post from me again. And no law will change that. A law encouraging people to run other people over, is just an opportunity for the justice system to reach into people's lives, and do more of what it does, which is spend a lot of money to get it wrong half the time.

A law cannot let you run people over. All a law can do, is make it easier for the cops to let some people get away with it, while giving other people life in prison for the same thing. Depending on who you are and who you know. That is all it will come down to, law or no law, who you are, and who you know. Who gets run over, and who does the running over. You switch the people, you reverse the legal outcome.

Let's not delude ourselves. If you encourage people to run other people over, you are starting a fight that is too big for you to win. And likely no one wins.

There is already adequate protection for people who are in danger. You don't need to throw red meat to racists bragging that you are the politician who will help them run over black people.