LOADING...
LOADING...
LOADING...

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Massive Demand to Lock Up the Innocent in a Democracy

My friend is serving two life sentences without parole from age 21, for a crime that didn't happen.

My first surprise was the amount of lying in the process. It started with a dishonest detective and a news reporter with a personal connection. Pretty soon every witness was lying and deleting evidence. And then came something most people don't know exist, the jailhouse witnesses. These are felons who are coerced to claim a defendant confessed, and will take over the trial with a story even if it contradicts all other evidence.

My second surprise was that there was no institution to stop this. There is no institution in the government to deter police faking evidence, deter witnesses committing perjury in court, or deter prosecutors coercing felons to lie. Police and prosecutors can and will choose to knowingly victimize the innocent without consequence.

My third surprise is that my experience was not unique. Everywhere I mentioned my story on the street and on the web, I heard similar stories from other people. Police lied and faked evidence, people were prosecuted for crimes based on lies. And the problem wasn't that they couldn't prove it. The problem was there was nothing they could do about it, nobody cared, there was no institution to stop it even if they could prove what happened. Especially if they could prove what happened.

My fourth surprise was there is a massive demand to lock up the innocent. During the recent debate on police misconduct, I presented to people what I had learned, how people can be convicted based on lies, how it happens frequently, and how the system is designed to enable this. Over and over I got a response which I guess I had been naive not to expect: Yes, we want to lock people up based on lies. We don't care what really happened, we don't care what the truth is. We want to lock up undesirables, this is how we get them off the street and improve the world. Whether the police misconduct is accepted, and therefore whether the outcome of the mock trial is accepted, is decided outside the courthouse by an approving or disapproving mob.



I don't know why I imagined everybody would be obsessed with these corny concepts of truth and due process and fair trials and the Bill of Rights. Obviously the Bill of Rights, like most laws, was written because human nature produced something else. The people in Britain, who enforced justice in a way the Bill of Rights sought to protect against, were not aliens. They looked just like the people in the New World. And everywhere else, throughout history, the mob has preferred mock trials, or no trials, to fair trials. There is no reason people in the United States in the present day should be any different from people in other places throughout history.

I don't hope to persuade people my morals are better than their morals. There are upstanding citizens who are passionately in favor of the good, who think that who gets locked up should be decided outside trials, in a sort of popular local democratic process. If the police tell the paper the defendant is guilty, and the public decides the defendant is an undesirable, then trials are an obstacle to justice. Witnesses will be shamed for not lying. Law enforcement will be rewarded for engaging in misconduct, when it is necessary to lock up undesirables. And law enforcement will be punished through the democratic process if they don't fake evidence when necessary, to lock up those who should be locked up.



What I do hope is that we could have an honest debate about what policies we want, in a democracy. Instead of using this jailhouse-witness scam where we let felons out of prison for claiming inmates confessed, let's have a debate about whether we want a Constitutional amendment to do away with jury trials in some circumstances. Maybe the public would prefer an elected military tribunal, or a popular vote on guilt like a ballot measure with a list of the accused, in capital cases. These are people we would like to lock up, but we don't have any reliable way to do it. We have tried jailhouse witnesses and mandatory minimums and three strikes laws, but too many people seem to weasel around those. Must the mainstream of upstanding citizens be reduced to old-fashioned lying and operating in the shadows and looking the other way, to get the outcome that is good and right in a democracy?

Right now a large percentage of criminal cases (and people are reluctant to write down exactly how many) are built on the testimony of felons who are coerced to recite the prosecution narrative in exchange for reduced sentences. These are not real witnesses. These are people who are rewarded if and only if they recite the accusation as if they know it to be the truth. They have no penalty for lying in court, and in fact are rewarded only if they lie. But of course you are not allowed to tell the jury that. Again, the attitude of the public is who cares what really happened. We are locking up undesirables. We are turning them against each each other, and forcing them to lie about each other, this is fun. If their lowlife families don't like it, they shouldn't have been hanging out with lowlifes.

There is a genuine public demand in a democracy, to lock up people the mob doesn't like. So the real crime is not the crime they are convicted of, it is being an undesirable. Instead of localities hacking the process to get this result the majority wants, why can't we have an honest debate? Why can't we be fair and open, and pass a law to get what we want? Maybe it would be like a prior-convict bystander law. If you have a past drug conviction, and you are a bystander when a crime takes place, then you get 15 years. This will save us having to negotiate with felons to lie about each other. And it will of course save police having to drive around all day, in a fruitless hope to find enough actual evidence to lock up the people we want to lock up.



There is a massive demand in a democracy, to lock up the innocent, or at least those who are innocent of the particular crime they have been convicted of. I have seen it. I have heard from people who said it with no shame, who said it with pride. They said it with conviction of their own moral superiority, for wanting to get rid of the bad people, for not being too shy or too geeky to roll up their sleeves and lie or fake evidence or whatever, to get the result that is desirable for the public good. But we should be honest about what we are doing, in a democracy. Otherwise some people will lose elections, and half the people will be in great distress for not knowing why.

Our current social conflicts can be settled at the ballot box instead of in the streets, and without needing to be tied to other issues or to particular parties. Looking throughout history, I am sure the demand to lock up the innocent comes from all races and demographics. We just need to decide how we want to do it. And then it can be done more cheaply and efficiently within a system designed for the purpose it is used for, and with a lot less rancor.

The Florida Supreme Court Innocence Commission conducted what can only be considered an embarrassing charade, when determining how to mitigate wrongful convictions, which arise from prosecutors rewarding felons who lie at trials with freedom. In the absence of assuming the judges of the Florida Supreme Court are evil, I can only conclude they are stupid, or assume their observers are. It is entirely possible they know their arguments are spurious, but they are designed to appeal to dumb people to put on a facade that they had a reasoned debate. Most likely their idiotic arguments were designed to support a predetermined outcome, of putting on a political display of being fair and reasoned but tough on crime.




For this particular debate, most participants began with a pretend worship of the ridiculous premise that the jury is the "finder of fact" and should not be deprived of information by some other institution or branch of government.





Only a jury can decide that a defendant is guilty. But that is far from the same as "only a juror can decide someone is not credible." In fact, a simple policeman can deprive the jury of a particular witness, by not bothering to write down his name. The jury has no subpoena power, and even their questions are reviewed by the court. The idea that the jury gets to choose what witnesses they see is "turning the system on its head."

Of course the judge is presumed to be better at weighing the credibility of a witness than a juror, and only an ignorant or dishonest person would compare their efforts. The judge, and the prosecution and defense, know more than the jury. The reason you cannot find guilt except through a jury, is not because the jurors are better at finding fact than a judge. It is because the jury is less corruptible, and is cumulative. For this reason we insist only that the final finding of guilt can only be done through a jury. Limiting evidence is absolutely a role which defendants must allow to a smart but corruptible judge.

You NEED to get another 12 random people to each agree with everything that made it this far. You don't need for any item, including the charge itself, to make it this far.

The first problem with the Supreme Court's pretend premise, is most of the work of the attorneys and judge in a trial, consists of preventing the jury from hearing most of the things both sides would like to show them. There are a lot of things both sides would like to see admitted. And for every item they will tell you the Pilgrims wrote on Plymouth Rock that we should get this, I don't even know why we are having a meeting about it. I didn't know they were automatically taken seriously, much less quoted!

Their "jury issue" is simply them paying people to lie to the jury, but not telling the jury that is what they are doing. And big surprise, the jury would never guess that is what they are doing. The jury being "willing to listen to" a liar, is actually their own government telling them to listen to a liar, and hiding from them that it is garbage.

Ask a juror: Do you assume if prosecutors were letting dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying, the legislature would stop it? YES! WTF? The jury assumes it's a legislature issue. That would have been fixed, right?

This Innocence Commission thing, it was just a bunch of people in a room saying "here is what I would like." And some cheezy car salesmen tried to get more weight for their personal agenda, by packaging it as some sort of tradition, the jury gets to see everything. It's not for us in this room to decide, its for the Pilgrims, and they already decided: Rule 1) The jury gets to see everything! False convictions what? Never mind that, we're past that already.

Here is just a small list of things which never make it to the jury:

-	expert witnesses not allowed by the judge
-	hearsay
-	witnesses from jail who heard the defendant say he was innocent
-	confessions after the defendant asks to speak to his attorney
-	witnesses favorable to the defendant who would expose themselves to prosecution by testifying, rather than be granted immunity or rewarded by prosecutors
-	other defendants who claim the same jailhouse witness lied about them
-	other jailhouse witnesses the prosecution decided not to use because their stories conflicted
-	photographs of marijuana which was not taken from an apartment supposedly ransacked by the defendant
-	exhibits, props, and walkthroughs judged misleading, confusing, or unnecessary
-	prior bad acts alleged against the defendant or witnesses
-	prior errors by state technicians who testify about evidence
-	evidence obtained in illegal searches, and tampered evidence
-	shocking crime-scene photos which are redundant in presenting facts of the case
-	questions to normal witnesses about whether they received a benefit for testifying
-	most of the things defense attorneys would like to mention which are objected to

Their disrespect for the jury extends to:

-	jailhouse witnesses are released from prison, without ever asking the jury who convicted them
-	jailhouse witnesses are released from prison, without allowing opposing attorneys to argue against it, much less in front of a new jury

Most case law and rules of evidence derive from the assumption that jurors cannot weigh information rationally. The specific idea that jurors can weigh the credibility of jailhouse witnesses rationally is clearly false, as JURORS ARE INTENTIONALLY DEPRIVED, BY THE COURT, OF INFORMATION WHICH, BY HABIT AND PREFERENCE, THEY WOULD USE TO WEIGH WITNESS CREDIBILITY. Here is a list of some examples, which is not intended to be exhaustive.

-	the jury is already deprived of background information, such as the specific crimes the jailhouse witness was convicted of
-	the jury is never instructed with a list of things they assume you would tell them, but they don't know they have been deprived of
-	unlike other processes such as ballistics and DNA, you are not allowed to present experts to tell the jury jailhouse witnesses are a flawed process, having produced many false convictions in the past
-	the jailhouse witness is intermingled with witnesses who were not paid to testify, but the jailhouse witness is more interesting and tells a complete story rather than a fragment
-	jurors are under the false assumption that the prosecutor, as an adversary of crime, would use the full resources of the state to investigate and bring to light any dishonesty by the jailhouse witness, and to prevent that criminal getting out of jail by lying
-	jurors are under the false impression there is some institution in the government charged with detecting and investigating lies by prosecution witnesses, when in fact it is the policy of the state to leave it up to private defense attorneys to investigate and prosecute this crime haphazardly

The most important reason jurors are not qualified to weigh the credibility of jailhouse witnesses is

-	jurors are under the false assumption that there is a penalty for perjury in court, and are never instructed otherwise

I can point you to numerous examples of witnesses and even prosecutors lying at trial without consequence. I will only offer a few to make my point:

-	Neisha Cintron
-	Officer Jackson Athaide
-	State Attorney Stewart G. Stone

But here is what the jury was actually told during a trial, about the credibility of jailhouse witness Kaylee Simmons:





Not only is it completely false, but no other witness in the whole trial was described as having this extreme disincentive to lie!

Here is the sad Florida Supreme Court mumbling somewhere in the 100's of pages of fine print that you "may consider some testimony with caution":





Hold on, a State Attorney, a Prosecutor of the State of Florida, just told you that of all the witnesses in the whole trial, one and only one will get life in prison if they catch her lying! The jailhouse witness!

And it is completely false. But the jury has NO IDEA.

And this is how the Florida Supreme Court scammed you by putting on a pretend debate to arrive at a fake solution designed by pussies. They are not some high-minded jurists, but are just insecure idiots fretting about their own political skills and prospects.

There was apparently a sheriff in this group, Doughnut Bill Cameron of Charlotte, who feared radical left-wing judges would have discretion to automatically throw out evidence, and save people being wrongly convicted. He wants to convict people who police have boasted to the local newspaper are guilty of murder, but they can't actually produce the evidence to prove it. And of course the county jail where inmates get the information to claim other inmates confessed, is run at the discretion of the sheriff without any interference or deterrent.

Pretending jailhouse witnesses are just about whether you believe them or not, is a scam in itself. They are a circus which takes over trials with nonsense in a way no jury instruction can cure, even if they are known to be lying.

-	jurors don't absorb or follow voluminous jury instructions
-	jailhouse witness testimony affects admissible evidence even if lying
-	jailhouse witness affects jury instructions and appeals standards in circumstantial cases
-	jailhouse witnesses tell a complete story which is better suited to juror attention span than any other witness or evidence delivered in fragments
-	jailhouse witnesses are not held to the same standard as other evidence which is "confusing"
-	jailhouse witnesses are mixed in side-by-side with actual witnesses, not with hearsay
-	defendants and their families, don't understand their government actually can and will do something that crooked to them, and that it can take over a trial and jurors will actually believe it, until it is too late

I don't see Sheriff Doughnut Bill Cameron of Charlotte taking such a hands-off approach to any other scam which victimizes the innocent. Where else has he ever advocated for letting the scamming felons go, while only suggesting the general public might consider being cautious around them? The government produced these witnesses, so the Florida Supreme Court is really advising people to be cautious around their own government. And Republicans wonder why they lose elections.

It is pretty cheezy for sheriffs or prosecutors to declare before an audience of gullible rubes "juries getting to decide what evidence is admissible is a bedrock principle of our legal system." All they really mean is "jailhouse witnesses are something I bought and paid for, I manufactured it myself, and half the time I don't even have any actual evidence, so I would like to see it admitted." Why don't we admit tampered evidence or hearsay? Because it is not credible. It is not for the jury to decide whether to believe it.

Cases are built by police and prosecutors who keep every piece of evidence favorable to the prosecution, and lose the name of every witness favorable to the defendant, every step of the way before the defendant even gets an attorney. Defendants don't have investigators at crime scenes, especially not innocent defendants who weren't even there. Police and prosecutors are supposed to follow Brady. But there is no institution in the government to enforce it, to investigate and deter and punish them if they don't. They don't even think the role of the judge is legitimate, as a gatekeeper to enforce some honesty at the very end in what the jury sees.

The debate over whether jurors can tell if inmates are lying or not, is spurious from the beginning. Jurors literally have no basis to determine whether or not an inmate is lying. Suppose I tell you I drank two cups of water yesterday. There is literally no way for you to know if I am lying, it doesn't matter if you are a judge or a secret service agent. If a juror believes a jailhouse witness, it can never be proof of defendant guilt, because there is literally no way for the juror to know whether the jailhouse witness is lying. The only thing it can prove is that the juror has not been informed and educated about the nature of jailhouse witnesses because you are not allowed to tell them.

The credibility of the jailhouse witness is based solely on the juror's belief that the court system would not put a liar in front of them, that a prosecutor would not put someone in front of them unless the prosecutor knew it was the truth. The jurors are never told that the jailhouse witness pays no penalty for lying or if he is caught lying. Jurors are never told that the prosecutor himself pays zero penalty if the witness he let out of prison is found to be a liar. The prosecutor is in fact rewarded, for getting convictions in "tough" cases (also know as people who are probably innocent).

Jurors just assume you would not put a liar in front of them, somebody would stop it, e.g. the judge. Jurors don't know there is literally no constraint on a prosecutor saying "anyone who claims the defendant confessed gets out of jail." There is literally no reason for any sane person to assume this process would produce anything but an unlimited unconstrained supply of liars. There is literally no basis to assume the process has not produced a liar, if you know what the process is.

So jurors are not really weighing the credibility of the jailhouse witness. They are applying their preconceptions about prosecutors and judges and courthouses, their belief it is not just brazen lawyer slime, the lowest product of politics and human nature throughout history. People are awful in history books and the Bible, but not right in front of me. Jurors transfer onto the jailhouse witness the general credibility of the criminal justice system, which sadly is not worthy of any credibility, having spent its credibility so casually, over and over, to get false convictions. Oh well, another liar, another conviction based on lies, I hope there is not too much traffic on my way home from work today.

A trial with jailhouse witnesses begins with two assumptions, 1) the government would not let dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying to take the lives of innocents, and 2) the defendant has confessed and is therefore guilty. From that point, the burden is on the defendant to prove his innocence. So I ask you, what is the penalty, when a prosecutor is found to have let a dangerous felon out of prison as a reward for lying, to take the life of an innocent person? There is no penalty, and the prosecutor is rewarded for being successful. The penalty is on you, when those victimized by the justice system vote Democrat, and your taxes and health insurance go up. The price of convicting innocents to get one more marginal guilty person, even if they may be mental incompetents and untermenschen, is paid back tenfold in time.

The idea of a pretrial admissibility hearing is spurious. Because the very idea that judges or anyone can judge the credibility of a jailhouse witness is spurious. There is literally no way for a judge to know a jailhouse witness is lying, in an individual case. It is only by looking at the incentives, and the process of how jailhouse witnesses are manufactured, that one can expect jailhouse witnesses in general are most likely lying almost all of the time. So there is no role for hearings, or the wisdom of a judge, or the credibility of a particular informant, in an individual case.

The only way for you to know the jailhouse witness is lying, is because he wants to get out of prison and he knows he can do it this way. That is true of all of them, in every case. It is not just a theory that this is an unreliable type of witness. It is something proven by experience. By contrast, there is zero evidence, zero actual experience, and really not even any theory to support the idea, that a judge can know something did or didn't happen in a room between two people.

It is impossible for a jury to know beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual jailhouse witness is telling the truth. It is easy for a jury to assume beyond a reasonable doubt, that the government would not employ a documented process of letting felons out of prison as a reward for lying, without any possible penalty (and in fact rewarded by the gullible and bloodthirsty voter). It is easy, and also wrong, and the rules are you have to say nothing and let the jurors be wrong.

These slimeballs will manufacture every piece of evidence a gullible public will let them get away with, and tell you with a straight face it is a bedrock principle of our legal system. They would tell you judges have no role, it is just police and juries. And the Florida Supreme Court sticks this drivel, this garbage in a book and puts their name on it for lawyers to quote, crazy!

The Myth That Burns Our Cities and The Lying Game

David Cole of Taki Mag is totally wrong (as are Ann Coulter, Matt Walsh, Tucker Carlson, John Nolte and Daniel Horowitz) about what is "The Myth That Burns Our Cities".

White people have always wanted to get rid of Trump. What is different about Black Lives Matter, that white people are willing to destroy cities to sing along with an emperor's-new-clothes size lie about racism? What Republicans are missing is that police have been lying all along and victimizing the innocent without consequence, and white people want revenge. And Republicans' minds have been totally inoculated against this simple fact by "hands up don't shoot." It's like when commodity prices make a new high, and people say "I have seen this before, it will reverse." That is why they need computers to trade commodities. The human brain is captive to preconceptions. This movement is something different and Republicans don't get it.

Some background. Who are police primarily putting in prison? The crazy and the incompetent, not the evil. Everyone can name a politician who has caused more death and misery than anyone in prison. Load up your local county court docket. You will not find rational people like you or me, who decided to take a risk like in the movies, robbing a bank or smuggling drugs for a large amount of money, and made one mistake or got unlucky. You will see people who just went crazy for a moment and did something stupid, not for money or any rational reason. The prisons are filled with people whose minds are defective, and they are unable to take simple rational steps to avoid getting arrested. Every time people send the police out with a mandate to lock up more evil menaces, the police come back with a net full of incompetent people.

Consider the classic academic example of game theory, the criminal's dilemma. Both criminals are better off if neither talks. But each criminal is better off if he is the one who confesses and gets the deal. So they both confess and neither gets a deal. In all the places I have seen the criminal's dilemma written and mentioned, never has any wise person ever pointed out the real incentive facing both defendants is to lie! Because again, people who are not criminals or in prison, project their own "what would I do" thinking onto the kind of [mentally ill and irrational but experienced and desperate] people whom police actually pick up. Geeks who support police and want justice in a rational universe, cannot even conceive of the kinds of defective idiot-savant liars, and crooked police, and mob juries, that the real world is made of.

Consider a more realistic scenario where two people are arrested, and one of them wasn't even there. He doesn't even know what happened, and he thinks he can beat the charges. So his *incentive* is to deny everything. The second person who actually did the crime knows the police are clueless and think this other guy was there. So his incentive is to lie and say the guy who wasn't even there did everything! So the real incentive when a criminal knows nobody else was there or knows the truth, is always to lie! And the criminal gets the deal and walks, and the innocent guy gets life. And if a policeman has to delete five seconds of video, or lose one witness's name to make it work, he pays zero price for it and is never even investigated.

That is exactly how our criminal justice system really works! It could be a boyfriend and girlfriend with active cases and prior convictions, living in a house with a retarded younger cousin. The police raid the house on a tip. Who do the drugs belong to? They both say the cousin! Retarded person gets the mandatory minimum, life in prison. You say prosecutors could figure that out and wouldn't do it. Absolutely they would, why not? You say lawyers would speak out against a system like that. No, it is their cash cow. They like that it comes down to them, that they are the only savior. You say judges would stop it. They pay a price every time, especially when news media have sold the police story for clicks, that the defendant is PE#1.

Henry Hill in "Goodfellas" was a nice guy who would not even hang out with homicidal maniacs, much less ride along for no reason half the times they murdered people. What if Henry Hill was a small-time drug dealer, who was coerced to act as an informant from very early on? What if the entire movie "Goodfellas" was invented by a shifty drug dealer, based on gossip about the people who lived in his neighborhood? That doesn't fit with your preconceptions. But it fits with reality, that people who have no experience with the justice system have no idea about. The bulk of any product will be produced in the cheapest way that meets the measure. The prisons are stuffed with cases built not on shoe leather, but on lies.

It is also a game that favors prosecutors hiring habitual felons to prey on first-time offenders. A person who has never been arrested before, does not know enough about charges and trials and police reports, to know what the prosecution needs him to say. He might screw up and say "When Jim said he was going to try to grab the bag from the armed guard, I don't know for sure if Joe knew whether Jim was joking or not." A habitual felon has spent months in his cell, thinking of the exact lines and excuses that could get him convicted or get him off, for a particular charge. So only a habitual felon understands the game well enough, to be counted on to say and not say, the things the prosecution needs said and not said, to get a convicton.

An aggressive felon won't hesitate to completely invent "When Jim said he was going to try to grab the bag from the armed guard, Joe said yes, let's grab his bag, I am totally in on that." He knows the prosecutor doesn't just need to establish Joe was there, the prosecutor needs Joe as an eager accomplice. And the habitual felon knows what normal people don't know, that there is never any possible penalty for him lying, no matter how brazen the lie. It's a serious business, where experienced sociopathic menaces are put on the street, to secure the incarceration of a series of incompetents.

I remember when hate crimes were invented. Rush Limbaugh was frightened. He said these crimes are based not on any physical evidence, but on the contents of your mind. That requires thought police! That is generally what felony murder is. Police came to the home of Nathaniel Woods to execute a surprise warrant and enter his house. Prosecutors coerced witnesses to say Nathaniel Woods had a plan in his mind to lure police into his home. So why are white people going along with the felony murder prosecution of Officer Rolfe in Georgia? It is delicious revenge. Our justice system has been a lying game for too long, based far too often on the coerced storytelling of incarcerated drug felons. They made it a lying game.

Juries are just mobs, who will convict the innocent as often as they release the guilty, totally at random 10% of the time for no reason whatsoever. Prosecutor says he is guilty, he seems like an honest man, I have no reason to doubt that. That is why all it takes is a mandatory-minimum charge, to coerce someone to plead guilty to something he didn't even do. And they are faced with case law that has been perverted to fix the outcome of 1,000 prior cases, which limits and allows evidence in totally contorted ways that make it impossible to even tell the jury what happened. Including jailhouse witnesses who have been coerced to claim the defendant confessed, in an end run around the Constitution, 10 Commandments, and Code of Hammurabi. It is no surprise lawyers who have already been paid, advise the innocent to take the deal.

There is no SEC for police and prosecutors, no independent institution in the executive branch, to initiate their own investigations into suspect convictions and police and prosecutor misconduct. And there is not even anyone to complain to. Because no institution could entertain the complaints of 100% of criminals who claim the police acted in bad faith. So investigations of police are haphazard and extremely rare, initiated by criminals, and driven by the mob. Is it any wonder, with nobody but mobs and criminals to initiate investigations, that police realize nobody is watching and they can get away with it 99.9% of the time?

99.9% of claims of police and prosecutor misconduct are never even written down, much less centrally collected and reported. This enables Republicans to debate in a totally dishonest or misguided way by saying things like "How often do police really lie on the stand?" What percentage of convictions are false convictions based on lies? Republicans are less interested than the gun control crowd, in actual statistics and science to answer that question. They believe the research would all be biased. The only visible undeniable statistic we have is Andrew Gillum coming within .4%. And Republicans have no idea why, by choice. They say it is crazy and irrational, they cannot make sense of it.

Newspapers won't look into it, because they are down to skeleton staffs who do nothing but copy-paste local police blotters and sports scores, and transcribe Twitter and Youtube videos from public figures all day. Newspapers protect police in exchange for gossip. Judges are expected to deter police misconduct. Not by incarcerating police who break the rules. But by releasing criminals! Of course that does not deter crime, and only encourages more bizarre laws and perversion of the justice system, by a confused and angry and misinformed and polarized voter.

In Los Angeles, the free market grew the jailhouse witness scam to its logical end, where informants were paid, and paid for information they could claim defendants confessed to. And nobody pays any price, for victimizing the innocent in such a heinous manner. There is no justice. You have to be completely blind to and inoculated against what is actually going on, to support a justice system populated by people who feel no sense of right and wrong, and see justice as a cheap product like a used car, to pander to idealist Magoo suckers who will buy anything. If police have any kind of immunity whatsoever, then the system is not designed for justice. It is designed to be garbage and to kill the poor and innocent. It's like if ambitious politicians promised universal healthcare, and then made it affordable by shielding doctors from any liability for malpractice.

My friend was framed for first-degree murder, for a crime that did not even happen. I have documented this extensively and irrefutably on a web site seminolescam.com. You are welcome to go there and debate me, as to whether police who fake evidence, lie on the stand, and hide witnesses, and prosecutors who supervise perjury in a murder case, pay any price whatsoever. They do not and people will not stand for it any more. They will burn it down. And if black people and marxists have given them the product, the charge to achieve it, by singing along like "I Shot The Sheriff" and "Fuck Tha Police," then they will lie on the stand and say every cop and voter is a racist, if that is what it takes to finally lock these people up. It has been a lying game all along with neither justice nor truth, and it is time Republican suckers got wise to it before they lose all their offices to socialists and nihilists.

I believe that behavior is dictated by the incentives and deterrents built into systems. Like Adam Smith said, the baker bakes bread for me not because he is generous, but because he is greedy. That is the "free market" system promoted by Republicans.

I hold the tragic, fallen view of the nature of man, where man will do evil, any time he has any prospect to gain anything by it. Again, that is a right-wing view of the world like Ronald Reagan, "peace through deterrence."

I see that police pay no price whatsoever for faking evidence, lying on the stand, and hiding witnesses, and a prosecutor gets no penalty for lying, and supervising perjury, in a murder case. So it is not one prosecutor, or one case. It is a system which incentivizes, and does not deter, evil behavior.




You think it is okay for police and prosecutors to lie, or to coerce felons to lie, if it convicts the guilty. So police and prosecutors decide who is guilty, before it gets to a jury. And they get away with it, it is overlooked, to the extent they are able to persuade the public the defendant is guilty, through the news media. That is a mock trial.

It takes great vigilance to resist the evil nature of man, and to continue to be one of the places in history with fair trials, not mock trials. The United States is slipping into the common mediocrity of history with mock trials. Our criminal justice system is built on police whose crimes it is taboo to even write down a record of, and felons who are rewarded for lying with freedom! I want to "make America great again."

Americans who are in support of the good, will declare with pride that using lies is a good policy to lock up undesirables, where trials are an obstacle to justice. They believe all discipline of police, and deterrence to perjury, should be handled at the local level. That way whether misconduct by police and prosecutors is overlooked, and whether the outcome of mock trials is accepted, is decided by the local mob outside the courthouse.

Republicans who want to use three strikes laws, mandatory minimums, the coerced testimony of drug felons, and felony murder to lock up undesirables who are innocent of a particular crime, should be open and honest, and seek a system designed for what they want through the democratic process. You should run candidates on a platform of amending the Constitution to remove the right to a jury trial.

You should campaign to replace jury trials with a tribunal of elected judges, or a ballot measure with the names of the accused, at the local level. And you should promote "undesirables" legislation, where people with drug arrests get 15 years for being in the vicinity of a crime.

Then you won't put police in a position where they are punished if they don't fake evidence to lock up the innocent, and rewarded if they do, when the local paper has turned the bingo crowd against the defendant for clicks. And police won't take all the heat for living above the law, when it is the daimyos they answer to who are demanding unredressed injustice at the hands of government employees, according to their provincial moral aesthetics.

Contemporary political grievances resemble grievances in the Declaration of Independence:



But Republicans are reciting talking points from a time when Democrats wanted to rehabilitate murderers, and let them out of prison. Today's Democrats are like our founders, who wrote a historical anti-police screed in the form of the Bill of Rights. They want to see police and prosecutors who victimize the innocent at the request of the political overclass face justice.

Would you support an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to require reports and punish reporting failures like the SEC, to publish every time a cop is accused of perjury or a prosecutor is accused of suborning perjury, and every time someone with an active case, a drug arrest, or a convicted felon, is coerced to testify, and whether as a co-defendant, witness, or jailhouse so-called witness?

Would you support giving such an independent institution the power to initiate investigations in a proactive way, and prosecute police and prosecutors, to create a new and real deterrent to perjury and mock trials that is not captive to local politics, where there has been an overwhelming demand for mock trials throughout human history? Mock trials will be used just as quickly against police as undesirables, when police become undesirables, depending on how the political winds shift between localities, and in a single a locality from one era to the next.

Or do you support mock trials like in Greenwood, Colorado, where the daimyos boast they have already determined the outcome of any trials of police? Like our founders protested against, in the Declaration of Independence. Where the king's soldiers were immune from justice, so long as they faithfully executed the king's instructions. And therefore ended up facing great violence from time to time.



I disagree. It is because they are regulated locally, that the 51% majority is able to systematically victimize the 49% minority. This is a perfect example of the absence of checks and balances, anticipated by James Madison in Federalist 51. Police need to be compelled to report, and monitored and regulated, by an independent SEC-like institution in the executive branch at the state level.

The local political establishment can currently choose to overlook police misconduct to subvert state law, and lock up whomever the local majority wants locked up, and use state prisons to do it. Suppose the local paper says "Kim Hallock is a murderer". Suppose the police drive over to her house, arrest her, and plant a bloody shoelace in her house. Suppose an inmate in the county jail is then threatened with a life sentence, but let out of jail for swearing that Kim Hallock confessed to her in the jail.

This is obviously a setup, a scam, the mob operating through law enforcement. But whether they get away with it, is determined by whether 51% of people support what the Mayor or Sheriff did, and will vote for him in the next election for doing it. Distant people statewide are more likely to be interested in abstract ideals like truth and due process, relative to the politics of the local mob. And an independent institution at the state level with this purpose, will be interested in torturing police with whatever they can pin on them, for sport.

At the very least, a remote regulatory institution will be less interested in protecting cops they went to high school with, and less captive to the same local politics the cops themselves are captive to. So the outside body will always be like a second opinion, with a different set of political incentives, and often with competing or adversarial ambitions. You pit one group against the other, make them enemies, and someone will find the truth. That is the idea of checks and balances advocated by James Madison at the founding of our country. In contrast, the local citizens who form or dominate the oversight committee, would be the same citizens who dominate the mayor or sheriff election.

Coerced Jailhouse Confession Witness Satanic Scam

Jailhouse witnesses are a complete scam. The idea that people are even having a debate about them is like having a debate about Santa Claus. I have proved in the pages of my book how the jailhouse witnesses in Mandi Jackson's case told stories that are not possible. But that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about ALL jailhouse confessions in EVERY case. You don't know, this is the first you have heard of this, prosecutors tell you they are a great thing. I do know. Anybody who takes the time to look into it knows.

You have read the US Constitution, right? Do you remember from history class, the part where the colonists wanted independence from Britain, so that criminals could escape justice? Remember where it says that in the Declaration of Independence, the part about forming a new government so that murderers can get away with it? Actually it says the exact opposite. One of their grievances against the King was mock trials where murderers were getting away with it.


And yet right there in the new Constitution it says:


Thomas Jefferson, who was best friends with James Madison and had a large influence on the Constitution, proposed the following punishments for the crime of oral sex:


You can drill a hole through a girl's nose for licking pussy, but you can't ask her if she did it!

Did people like that really want to make it harder to convict criminals, by making it harder to coerce confessions? No. They knew jailhouse confessions are worse than useless, a complete scam. They are used by police and prosecutors to put over a fraud.

People think you can't be forced to testify against yourself, that is deep! But it's not so much that it is you, it's that anyone accused of a crime is likely to be chained to the floor. When people are chained to the floor, you would be surprised, they say whatever someone wants them to say. So it could just as easily be someone else who is accused of a crime and locked up, and forced to testify against you.

Back when they wrote the Constitution that was not such a big deal. Every town didn't have a ready supply of 100 people locked up facing life sentences for heroin at all times, whom they could coerce to claim someone confessed. And letting guilty people out of prison as a reward for lying about someone else, would have rubbed the hole-in-nose crowd wrong. They tended to be serious when they locked people up.

Our Founders could not have imagined someday we would have a million people in prison, and any one of them would gladly swear another inmate confessed to get out. Our Founders came from places that were tough on prisoners. They probably imagined any prisoner who did such a heinous thing would be hanged alongside of the person he accused, not let out and given a free pizza. And of course nobody needed another inmate to claim the accused confessed, when they could just wring it out of the accused himself.

Jailhouse confessions are not something new that cheezy car salesmen like State Attorney Phil Archer dreamed up. Coerced confessions are a very old scam, sold to a gullible public who is too busy with bread and circuses. The end run around the Constitution is to coerce other inmates to claim people confessed. Prosecutors will say it is a valuable tool to solve and prevent crime. But it is just the opposite. It is the first resort of lazy hucksters who wish to put up a mirage of solving crime, and get credit for it, without doing any actual work.

The authors of the Constitution knew that giving more tools to prosecutors, giving them absolute power, does not increase solving crimes and punishing criminals. How can it be that removing the option of obtaining confessions, and taking away tools, results in more crimes being solved and punished? Here are some passages from the Wikipedia entry for serial killer Andre Chikatilo, who lived in the USSR where police had absolute power:


Thanks to the powerful "tools" given to police in the USSR to coerce witnesses and solve crimes, Chikatilo went on to kill 56 people! Here is more from Wikipedia:


Jailhouse witnesses who claim inmates confessed are not a tool for getting convictions in tough cases. They are a pure scam pushed by lazy evil prosecutors on a gullible public. People who actually break the law know one thing better than their own birthday: Keep your mouth shut. Is it really possible that anyone doesn't know this? No. The number of inmates who actually confess to their fellow inmates is probably 0%. But even if it is 1% or 5%, those "confessions" are certain to be completely filled with misinformation to suit the immediate agenda of the confessor. The inmate is not saying something true like he is under oath in court. He is saying something designed to get an immediate effect or result from his fellow inmate at the immediate moment.

The amount of hearsay that is admissible at trial is 0%. Inmates did not ask to talk to fellow inmates. They were locked in a box with them. It is not exactly a courtroom setting. It is documented to produce lies on all sides, false convictions, and millions in costs to the taxpayer, not to mention whole generations of voters with no faith in the system. Trust me, nobody confesses, it is the oldest scam. It is even in the fucking 10 Commandments:


Was God telling Moses it is okay to bear false witness against people from across town? Or it is not so bad with total strangers, is God totally inane? No. God is saying that when there are only two people there, and nobody else knows what the truth is, spreading malicious gossip about your neighbor is one of the greatest temptations and oldest sins of humanity. Because nobody can prove you are lying. Nobody else was there. You have a solemn responsibility.

It is not just about lying, it is the setting. God is saying you shall not abuse your presumed position of superior information, to incite a mob against someone you are forced to live with. God is saying you have a responsibility to provide accurate information about the things only you can know. And not allow yourself to weigh the truth lower than personal issues, that are likely to arise with someone you live next to. But now people who commit violent crimes get out of prison, if they also commit this additional sin.

It was even in the Stela of Hammurabi:


4,000 years later white-trash dirtbags come along, and creepy noodles like State Attorney Phil Archer, and say no, this is not the worst sin of man, suborned by Satan himself. This is an important tool at the disposal of law enforcement! Even for atheists, the concept of "satan" is an abstract metaphor for false prophets like Phil Archer and their gullible minions.

The one in a million actual jailhouse confessions, if any even exist, are more likely to come from innocent people, who should not even be in jail. They are the ones who, when surrounded by criminals, feel the need to say "I am a criminal too." Criminals feel uncomfortable and threatened by squares who never jaywalked. Non-criminals don't want to be exposed as a perceived threat, or a disapproving outsider, to the criminals they are locked in a room with. They don't know or care about the religion of "always deny, never admit to anything, always keep your mouth shut" because they don't do crime and don't think about crime every day. Jailhouse confessions are a tool for convicting the dumb and the innocent.

Mandi Jackson was not a member of the high school science club. She was a teenage hooker. She knew more than anyone the rule of keeping your mouth shut, and keeping secrets from people around you, about what is really going on. When she finally got me to have sex with her, she didn't say "take your clothes off so we can have sex." She said "get comfortable." Mandi was still thinking I was a cop. Scott Love is the one who had been in jail before, because he is an idiot. But here are some clips from Scott's police interview. He actually carried on talking to police for 12 minutes!




For contrast, this is a clip from Mandi's police interview. She talked to them for 40 seconds. It consisted mainly of "no, no, no" and "I want to speak to my attorney."




This is Mandi on a call to her mother from jail. Listen at 8:00 to Mandi saying she is not going to talk to ANYBODY because "anybody could be the police" or a snitch or confidential informant:





You don't need to study Mandi Jackson's psychology, to solve the hard problem of whether Mandi Jackson really confessed. The stories the other inmates said she confessed to are impossible. They are also the only evidence that Mandi Jackson did what she was convicted of.

But here is what people who have never sat in a murder trial with jailhouse witnesses don't know: It doesn't matter if the other inmates' stories are obviously totally wrong, and they were obviously coerced to invent them. Prosecutors can still use them to take over and destroy a trial like throwing a bucket of spaghetti on the jurors' heads. It's a trick, it's a scam which convicts the innocent. People who write about jailhouse witnesses say they "taint" the jury with suggestions and suspicions and ideas, even if they are obviously lying, or known to be paid, or whatever. But it is much worse than that.

For the prosecution to try to prove what happened, they normally have to spend 5 days with 10 witnesses such as fingerprint experts and video technicians, and 100 pieces of evidence. A jailhouse witness can tell a whole story of a crime, with every detail, in a single breath.

To disprove what the jailhouse witness said, the defense has to spend time and money on experts, and deposition transcripts. They need a witness and a few pieces of evidence for every detail they can disprove, spread across several days of trial. The jury can't absorb it like that, all spread out and broken up by a bunch of rules and lunch breaks and court procedures. They can only absorb it the way only the jailhouse witness tells it.

Plus, the jailhouse witness is a colorful character, with a unique background. So it is the only part of the trial that half the jurors even wake up for.

There are crazy perverted rules governing almost every type of evidence. A jailhouse witness claimed my friend ransacked an apartment to steal things. The judge wouldn't let the defense show drugs that were in the apartment that nobody stole. Case law won't let you say what the jailhouse witness was convicted of, or anything about the type of person they are, other than the number of felonies and misdemeanor crimes of dishonesty, and that they were offered a benefit. If the jailhouse witness was charged with the exact same crime, and instead tells the exact story of her own crime, you are not allowed to point that out.

You are not allowed to say anything unpleasant about witnesses who are felons, because left-wing judges didn't want juries to be biased against criminals as defense witnesses. This was designed to balance the false presumption the prosecution wouldn't put liars up there. But when a felon testifies for the prosecution, both their fake credibility is summed, not balanced out. You are not allowed to use the words "lie" and "liar" in front of the jury.

You are certainly not allowed to tell the jury 50% of murder convictions exonerated by DNA in the State of Florida involved jailhouse witnesses. Jailhouse witnesses are produced by a process. But unlike other processes such as ballistics matches or DNA, you are not allowed to have experts elucidate and question that process in front of the jury.

Any witness or evidence that might *confuse* the jury is blocked. Hearsay is blocked. But the jailhouse witness can go up and tell a crazy story that contradicts every piece of physical evidence! The jailhouse witness can say anything about anything, including the defendant, so long as she claims the defendant confessed to it. Those are the rules of evidence produced by case law.

The jury is under the false impression there is some penalty or consequence for lying. Real life is not TV, people commit perjury in trials every day and there is no consequence. For jailhouse witnesses, there is a reward for perjury.

Worse than not telling the jury things, is what jurors assume because you don't tell them otherwise. Jurors don't know the rules of evidence are stopping you from showing them and telling them things about the jailhouse witness that they assume you would tell them. You are not allowed to tell the jury, that you are not allowed to use the word liar! So the jury gets the false impression that all the lawyers have been fooled by this witness and believe he is telling the truth, and it is up to them to wonder for the first time if it is a liar. The rules of evidence give special favor to jailhouse witnesses over every other type of evidence.

The jailhouse witness has secondary effects. Suppose the jailhouse witness says "Everything I tell you is a lie. The defendant killed the victim with a knife." Now the prosecution is allowed to show the jury knives all day, knives found in another county three days earlier with jello on them. Even if there is no other evidence of a knife or knife injury. And the defense is no longer allowed to give the jury an instruction to use caution in a circumstantial case. Because it is no longer a circumstantial case if the jailhouse witness claims there is a confession.

The jury doesn't remember all the little fragments of evidence and testimony, to pay any attention when the defense lawyer starts telling the jury the claimed confession is inconsistent with some little thing they heard a few days earlier. All it does is remind them what the jailhouse witness said. But sometimes it works in reverse, the judge only allows evidence which is consistent with what the jailhouse witness claims the inmate confessed to.

Like suppose there is weed in a house, and the defendant went there to smoke weed. Suppose there was also a gun buried under floor the defendant didn't know about, and an inmate claims the defendant confessed to going there to get the gun. The judge will allow the prosecution to show the jury the gun, and won't allow the defense to show the jury the weed. This is out of fear that an appeals lawyer will claim the weed had nothing to with the actual crime of getting the gun, and biased the jury unnecessarily. Yes, it really is that perverted, and worse.

They literally tell inmates "Anyone who can find out what this other inmate is accused of and claim he confessed to it gets out of prison." Then they put a newspaper in the day room with the story of what the inmate is accused of. Or they let other inmates into a person's cell to look at that person's paperwork, while that person is in court. Or they do a surprise search and throw an inmate's police report on the floor in the day room, when they don't have any other evidence and need someone to read it and claim the inmate confessed.

I have spoken to girls whose cases were settled, who I knew were best friends with other girls in the jail, because they told me. And when I mentioned the other girl after their case was settled, they denied having heard of the other girl. Because they were afraid if they admitted knowing the other girl, the State would bring their charges back, and threaten them with life if they didn't claim the girl they knew confessed.

Finally, the judge tries to offer the jurors a cautionary instruction about jailhouse witnesses. Despite what judges may imagine about their own beauty, jurors don't listen to instructions! They are coddled and live like dolphins! They are just a mob of idiots. The jury instructions contain more hard reading than they have all done, combined, in the last 10 years.

Nobody who was just dragged off the street gives a fuck what the judge says or even remembers. They just wanted to get out of having to listen to their regular boss for a day. They sure as hell did not report for jury duty because they wanted to work, or to listen to a bitchy white girl in a robe. The majority of case law and rules of evidence are based on the assumption that jurors can't weigh information rationally. They don't even know which way is up, they just remember that one story that somebody told them clearly.

That is why the prosecution used a jailhouse witness whose story of the crime contradicted every other witness and piece of physical evidence in the case. And Mandi Jackson got life without parole.

You can read here how violent carjacker Kaylee Simmons got out of prison for claiming Mandi Jackson confessed to something that contradicts every other witness and piece of evidence:

Kaylee Simmons

One of the biggest lies is that cheezy car salesmen like State Attorney Phil Archer are actually solving violent crime like this. If we stop doing this, rapists and carjackers will get your family! It will be the 1970's all over again!

There is someone stealing the lives of your innocent neighbors and meticulously covering up his crime. It is State Attorney Phil Archer. They don't teach you in high school civics class, that the government can pay felons to lie and take your life away and nobody cares. This may be the first you are reading about it right here. Believe it. It is a sinkhole that can suck in you or your child or your neighbor.

Mock trials are the norm, not the exception, in human history. Because people are a mob, people are gullible, people are suckers. The fallen nature of man creeps like weeds. Mock trials are as old as prostitution, and like prostitution they will turn up anywhere you don't make an effort to stamp them out. Mock trials are not some abstract thing from history. Like murder and prostitution, they are something in the present day. And unlike sodomy, we have not entered some new age where mock trials have become acceptable.

Mock trials are something in the present time, in your neighborhood, which you need to guard against. It is not for someone else to fix, there is not someone else who will look into it and take care of it. We live in a democracy, it is for you to fix, it is your responsibility. It is something that was worth fighting the British over, and it should be a concern for you also.

Deliver us from evil.

New York Police and Justice Reforms

Police in New York are some of the most hated people in the world, by those who have actual experience with them. Police in New York City plant drugs on suspects as standard procedure, making them unable to get a job for 20 years. Fossils like Newt Gingrich and Stephen Miller tell you the people who don't like the New York police are the same rehabilitation crowd from the 1960's. But it is not that at all. The recent justice reform laws in New York were not just some laws to let murderers out of prison. They addressed specific areas of police misconduct that the cop-worship cult has no idea of, and their bad children the police hide from them.

Make no mistake, police in New York do not care one bit about the innocent being victimized, any more than a baker cares if people are hungry. The cops want to make arrests, just like the baker wants to sell bread. The recent justice laws in New York were designed to protect the innocent from serial killer cops and prosecutors, who pay no price for victimizing the innocent for sport.

Getting access to witnesses earlier is a key way to protect the innocent from police and prosecutors. Who knew that something carved into the Bill of Rights might be important? Police often don't even write down the names of witnesses who don't support their narrative. By the time the suspect gets access to witnesses months later, other people they could have tracked down are long gone. And the witnesses they are able to talk to, have had their memories replaced by the police narrative written in the paper, to churn up clicks and show banner ads to the gullible justice mob. The more time passes, the less the public defender can even afford to track down witnesses, much less pay for deposition transcripts to sort out what they really witnessed.

Police also will not search crime scenes for exculpatory evidence. They will stage and fake things. They will leave items, or fail to record items, they know could exonerate the suspect. It is cheaper to just coerce a story of what happened, by threatening people at the jail, than to reconstruct what happened. By the time a defendant gets out on bond, the people who live at the crime scene will have moved out, together with all their furniture and even their neighbors. An innocent person locked in jail with a bond he cannot afford, will lose all his friends, all his family, his job, his possessions, all his ability to defend himself within a few months. Months before the public defender even reads his police report. Everything will be gone, except what the police chose to write down, and the witnesses the police found to back them up.

An innocent suspect held with a bond he cannot afford, cannot even talk to his family members to tell them the papers are wrong and he is innocent. Jail calls are usually cut off mid sentence. Prosecutors will lose some calls, and keep others, to construct a misleading narrative using the defendant's own voice. And prosecutors will change their fake story, to fit whatever they hear the defendant say the real story is, or to fit whatever evidence the defendant tells his family to help him find. They will fail to send DNA swabs to the lab, or change the location where they say they were collected, when they hear the defendant say those DNA swabs could prove the defendant is innocent. Prosecutors who hear the defendant say the names of witnesses, will then threaten those witnesses with life sentences, if they don't swear to the prosecution's narrative or swear the defendant confessed.

But I challenge any cop on here, or member of the cop-worship cult, to publish an answer to the following question with your name on it: Did this bullet pass through this hole this cop says it passed through seminolescam.com/bullet And if not, should that cop pay any penalty for staging that evidence? Will you type up an opinion of that crime scene work with your name on it and publish it? Will you use your name to request to the FDLE to prosecute that dishonest cop for faking evidence in a murder case? No, you will not. Because cops and their worship cult enjoy victimizing the innocent, it is standard human behavior throughout history.



These same police who will in most cases do everything they can to hide and obfuscate such a video, will kick in my door without hesitation to get any video if my neighbor somehow asphyxiates to death on my sofa. Not only will they not give me the same benefit of the doubt as Charles Hurt, but they will plant, stage, and overlook evidence as necessary to make sure they have no trouble pinning the blame on me and getting a conviction. And after police tell the newspaper their narrative of how I murdered my neighbor to sensationalize for clicks without any liability for libel, Charles Hurt will not defend me. Rather Charles Hurt will say I am a psychotic murderer and a perfect reason why we need the death penalty. And all this will happen while I am locked in isolation with no bond, months before I even get to see the evidence against me or talk to a lawyer, or even tell my family members what happened, without the prosecutor editing the phone calls or using the information to decide what swabs not to send to the lab because they could exonerate me.

Legislative Proposals for Republican Electoral Expansion and the Defeat of Socialism

1) No Jailhouse Confession Witnesses.

It is a strange situation where I can sit here and know as sure as the sky is blue, that jailhouse confession witnesses are garbage 99.999% of the time, and take over trials with nonsense. And yet I know the human race is built throughout history on this sort of thing, and a proposal to not do it won't be taken seriously. Confessions in general are like Paulie Cicero said to Henry Hill about heroin: Just don't do it. Like I have said elsewhere, Thomas Jefferson wanted to drill a hole through people's noses, but not ask them if they did it. You can produce 10, 100 confessions for every 1 guilty person. Why not go to the carnival and throw rings for a pink elephant? Because you won't even catch the Hamburglar with confessions. You will clog your net with incompetents.

2) No Sentences Over 15 Years from Coerced Testimony

The easiest way to get any conviction, is to find a felon who talks well, and threaten him until he tells a story that will get convictions. I am not proposing removing plea bargains and other types of coercion altogether. But I would rather give prosecutors a choice: Go out and produce hard evidence, produce normal witnesses, or limit yourself to 15 years. Plenty of people would still get life and the needle. The cost when they did, would drop 95%. Someone will have some crazy legal argument that either coerced felons are credible or they aren't; you shouldn't give even 15 years if they aren't, you should give life if the jury thinks they are. You are cracking open the burden of proof! I still like my proposal.

3) Require Standardized Central Reporting

Standardized central reporting of all events in the justice system like with the healthcare system, with a penalty for reporting failures, would enable an honest debate. And it would enable the discovery of real opportunities for improvement without letting all the real criminal menaces out. It would provide a deterrent to misconduct and abuse of the rules. And it would start to bend the curve on the anti-cop nihilist demographic. I want all police misconduct, all alleged perjury, every time a prosecutor lies, every time a coerced or rewarded witness testifies, and what category of witness, centrally published. I would like IQ tests of those found guilty versus plea bargain and so on, but that is not practical. Age would suffice. Are sly old criminals cutting deals to testify against naive young innocents?

4) Relocate Monitoring And Deterrence Away From Local Politics

Police misconduct cannot be dealt with by anyone in the same zip code. It needs to be punished, because judges letting criminals go is not a deterrent to police. Prosecutors lying and coercing perjury and hiding evidence cannot be monitored by The Bar or other lawyers. It has to be independent in the executive branch at the state level. And it has to be proactive, not reactive to a mob. Maybe all this would start to bend the curve on perjury.

5) Make Laws Reflect the Mainstream of Culture

When society embraces sodomy and marijuana, the justice system uses discretion to stop enforcing the law. If people don't like mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws, maybe they should be revisited. Is there a less blunt way to address criminals who seem to be getting away with it? Is there a way that can better separate between true menaces to society, and more harmless people? And I really don't think it is Constitutional, to give the prosecution or victim a right to a racially random jury, or to block defendants from presenting so many types of evidence.

I expect the chance of getting any of these legislative changes is zero. Instead, I expect Democrats to win eventually, and deliver who knows what insane garbage. I will move to Wyoming.


Alternative to Jailhouse Confession Witnesses

An alternative to jailhouse confession witnesses, would be a Constitutional amendment to allow some kind of military tribunal in capital cases. Or who knows, maybe even a 90% statewide democratic vote to convict people, a ballot measure.

Because let's be honest, there are some people whom the police and the local paper think are guilty, but they can't actually prove it in front of a jury. And they would like a way to convict those people.

So there is social demand to lock people up whom someone other than a jury is certain is guilty, based on some type of evidence that won't work in a trial. So let's be honest about it, and up front about it. If there really is demand to lock people up who can't be convicted in a jury trial without using a scam, then let's be honest that's what the jailhouse confession scam is and what we really want to do.

And let's get proposals, and vote on them democratically for how to do it within the law without cheating, without letting felons out of prison to do it, and with full disclosure to the voter what is going on.


Honest Policy on Coerced Felon Testimony

The attitude of the public toward coercing felons to testify against each other, for reduced sentences, is "Who cares what really happened? We are locking up undesirables. We are turning them against each each other, and forcing them to lie about each other. You don't like it, you shouldn't have been hanging out with lowlifes."

So the real crime is not the crime they are convicted of, it is being an undesirable. It is being a person whom newspapers can incite the public to hate you, and actual witnesses will change their stories to get you convicted, and jurors will search Google and say "guilty" so they can make it home for dinner, and police misconduct will be overlooked to lock you up. There is a genuine public demand in a democracy, to lock up people the mob doesn't like.

I don't see an obvious way to write legislation that says "you get 15 years for being there when undesirables break the law." Prior-convict bystander law? But that's the idea of the 15-year sentence limit for convictions based on coerced testimony. We should be honest about what we are doing, in a democracy. Otherwise we will lose elections, and half the people will be in great distress for not knowing why.


General Problems in the Justice System

1) Asymmetry in criminal prosecution is not recognized by perverted case law and checks and balances.

The Bill of Rights recognizes that the government has the money, the power, and and the popular support to victimize the innocent. But case law doesn't recognize this asymmetry. To address the fact that juries are sort of a mob, judges have said you can't show the jury evidence the accused is a drug user. But what if the accused went to a friend's house to buy drugs, and that is part of the defense narrative of the defendant walking in on a murder? Judge will say you can't show the jury the real reason the defendant was there, because the victim was a drug user. Or what if a defense witness has prior convictions for burglary? Can't bias the jury against the defendant with that information. Now what if that same witness is a prosecution witness, who claims he witnessed a burglary? You can't tell the jury the the prosecution witness was convicted of a burglary with the exact same details he claims he witnessed.

Defendants will always lie and say they didn't do it. So defense lawyers don't want to be penalized by The Bar for lying. Now the Bar to be fair, won't penalize prosecutors for telling obvious lies. So because it is silly to try to stop criminals lying, prosecutors are allowed to lie to convict the innocent, without sanction.

There is a recent law that says nobody can remove a juror based on race. They didn't want prosecutors removing black people from a jury of a black defendant. In practice, it means prosecutors can stack the jury with white people, or even with Japanese people who are not peers and have no provincial knowledge that would enable them to "use their common sense" as the jury instruction says. If a defendant tries to remove Japanese people to get a jury of his peers that will actually understand tackle football or something, the prosecutor can object to it. As if the state or the victim has a Constitutional right to a jury of racially diverse people. What seems like a simple law becomes in practice a way for releasing the guilty and convicting the innocent, for randomizing outcomes with laws that arbitrarily help one defendant and hurt another. But explaining this complex topic is too big to do here.

2) Judges are expected to deter misconduct, but they have no power to punish, and couldn't use it anyway because they are captive of the local political establishment.

There can be rampant perjury in the courtroom. But there is no enforcer. The judge does not have the political capital to do something different from what the prosecution wants. Judges can't penalize prosecutors who victimize the innocent even if they wanted to. Their deterrent is to set the innocent, or even criminals free, when the state breaks the rules. But that is not a deterrent to the state breaking the rules, and the judge gets penalized, to the extent police and prosecutors outnumber them, and have a larger political voice to tell the narrative of the judge protecting criminals. Even if the defendant was innocent and the cop was a criminal. Then the voters come back with mandatory minimums, so that other voters come back with jailbreaks.

3) Locally, the law is enforced unevenly, there is tyranny of the majority.

In Republican localities, they will refuse to even write down instances of police misconduct. In Democrat localities, they will prosecute police for misconduct that did not even happen. The regulator becomes the voter in statewide and national elections. Republicans and Democrats both lose votes, because of local behavior in their safe districts. But changes at the state and national level do not always match well the problems at the local level. If a cop lies in a police report, or fakes evidence, we don't need to elect a marxist President who will let everyone out of prison. There just needs to be some independent body not subject to local or even national politics, to investigate and punish the cop.

Nobody can listen to the complaints of 100% of criminals who claim cops cheated. So investigations of police are currently initiated by criminals, prosecuted by the mob, and tried at the ballot box. If a stock went up on high volume before a merger announcement, the SEC would investigate without waiting for someone to complain. If a homeless person is murdered, or there is a crop of marijuana in a national forest, the police don't wait for a complaint to investigate. In many cases bringing the family members of victims into prosecution decisions, only makes the decisions worse informed and more corruptible.

Local districts enforce what they wish the law was. If a drug dealer is arrested, it is desirable to use the opportunity to lock up all his undesirable and thug friends at the same time. Local voters may think it is totally appropriate for a cop to lie, to achieve this "moral" outcome they desire, even if their party will lose elections at the state level with this platform. Especially safe local districts need some incentive, some penalty to straighten out, or else they manufacture demand for federal power. That is what slavery did to states rights. The sin of slavery killed states rights. Railroading people with crooked trials is locally popular, with the same result.

4) The cheapest way to prosecute criminal cases is by coercing felons to make up stories.

The Bill of Rights and human experience recognizes it is much cheaper to coerce a confession at the jail, than to go around gathering evidence. Especially in cases where the parties are involved in drugs or prostitution or even spousal cheating, or computer crime, or just private business. Everybody keeps their mouth shut and all the phone calls and everything is too secretive to track down. So police find a felon who talks the best, and can most plausibly have some idea what happened, and threaten him with a mandatory minimum unless he can produce a story that will be valuable to produce some convictions. Even worse if it is the jailhouse witness scam. Such witnesses are not even required to get anything about the crime right. They just say the defendant admitted guilt, and I wasn't there so I don't know the actual details.

5) Felony murder and mandatory minimums and case law have increased the role of felons who are coerced to lie in the courtroom.

Felony murder and mandatory minimums mean anyone in the vicinity can be threatened with life. And case law designed to prevent juries from being biased against the defendant and defense witnesses, means you also cannot tell the jury the full information about felons who are coerced to testify for the prosecution. And while perjury is rampant in the courtroom, and there is no penalty for prosecutors and prosecution witnesses who lie, the jury imagines there is a penalty for perjury, and prosecutors are for honesty. And you are not allowed to tell the jury the truth that prosecutors lie to win cases and there is no sanction and there is actually a political reward for it. And it evolves, and refines a process, that becomes a factory built around lying felons who talk well and know the game, shifting criminal punishment onto the innocent and incompetent.

Felony murder requires just suggesting to the jury what was in someone's mind. It is not based on evidence. The defendant doesn't have to be in the building where the crime occurred. You just have to have one person testify that you sold someone a gun with knowledge that it would be used in a burglary. The sentences and the laws are too powerful, and the burden of proof too low, and the ease of coercing felons to provide the simple lies that support convictions too abundant, so that it magnifies the problem of uneven enforcement of the law based on local politics. In Republican districts, felony murder will be used to convict the innocent for political gain. In Democrat districts, it will be used on the police themselves. It is too powerful and too easy, and in practice it is combined with coerced testimony and politics, to be a wild and unregulated tool for injustice.

General Problems in the Justice System Legislative Concepts

I don't know what to do about case law. But at least actual laws should be written with asymmetry in mind, like it is illegal for a prosecutor to remove jurors based on race, but legal for a defendant to do so. Republicans should not be afraid to nominate judges who support the right to a jury trial, meaning the defendant is allowed to tell the jury true facts, even facts about the victim and prosecution witnesses. Otherwise you convict the innocent as often as the guilty, with stuff aimed at the guilty (or even designed to help the innocent in a different case), and you get a backlash.

There needs to be more records, so we can have an honest debate about the role of coercing felons to lie in the justice system. I want a record of every time a convict or person with an active case gets a sentence reduction or other deal for testifying. And I want to know whether it is an actual witness who is accused, an actual witness who is a bystander, or a jailhouse confession witness, or a drug informant or whatever. I want to know every time a cop or prosecutor is accused of perjury or misconduct. I want required reports, like the SEC, so that investigation and enforcement can be standardized and evenly monitored and regulated across districts. Probably at the state level.

And I want an independent institution in the executive branch to do it. State prosecutors and cops don't prosecute prosecutors and cops, except unfairly at best, when driven by the mob. There also has to be some way to reduce perjury in general, which is rampant. Probably take away the incentives, such as jailhouse confession witnesses, and cops who have immunity when they lie with good will from the mob based on what is in the local paper, and witnesses who just say what they read in the paper.

I think jailhouse confession witnesses should be 100% illegal right off, it is just garbage in 99.999% of cases, worse than hearsay. And it gums up the whole justice system, and creates all kinds of opposition to the death penalty, and even to incarceration in general.

There could be some new intermediate crimes, between murder and accessory, that are lighter than felony murder. Like there should be a crime between murder and stand your ground. Did you have the right to kill someone on your property, but maybe it could have been avoided? There are gray areas in plea bargains. But there need to be more intermediate crimes in jury trials. If we are going to be honest. Crimes like manslaughter are there, but their abstract definitions don't technically fit common events.

Mandatory minimums and three strikes laws manufacture Democrat voters demanding federal power, more reliably than immigration. Especially when combined with the way convictions are manufactured with the coerced testimony of felons. And drug sentences where the victim pays to kill himself, and Republicans wouldn't hesitate to give the victim life in prison. Millions of people in prison, often stupid people whom a lying felon was able to shift the blame to, means millions of families and sympathizers voting Democrat for decades.

Any ideas? Email 2ulive on gmail

Attorney General William Barr is a Sick Retard

From Breitbart.com...



William Barr is a sick retard, his simple fix is rounding up undesirables Chinese style. Idiots who go for this don't realize that most things they don't like about the justice system, came from the democratic process trying to protect innocents from people like Barr.

Once you accept this premise that there is some institution outside the jury who "knows who the criminals are," the next step is to figure out ways to get around the Bill of Rights to lock up whomever the 51% majority wants locked up. The response is other people voting to let everyone out.

It is a sick temptation that has been standard and common throughout history, that Barr doesn't realize he is a typical simpleton falling for. At the end of it, he will be locked up.

Barr said "you go to the police departments, they will know who the shooters are." People know who Barr is also. This is the temptation of every authoritarian, of people who voted for Hitler. They think if only we had more power, we could get done the things I want done. Then they invite the gorilla into the house, the golem, and the golem eats the ones who created it.

This is exactly why they framed my friend, and gave her life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't even happen. She was previously arrested with 7 pounds of GHB, and it went into 100 newspapers, it was a moral panic. Only problem is the crime lab said the police were wrong, all charges were dropped. Didn't matter, once that went into Google, police had carte blanche to frame her for murder for being a date rapist.

What Barr said is the single most evil statement I have ever heard any politician make. He is basically saying the police should be allowed to lock up whomever they think should be locked up! Which will be whoever their boss tells them to lock up. It is insane that we have someone so dumb in the Trump administration.

Habitual offender, felony murder, three strikes, are all tools that are used in practice with discretion to prosecute people not for a crime they actually did, but who have a bad reputation. The problem is once you create that hammer, it will be used on you. Or if not you, on other innocent people who vote. But rather than vote for a more rational system, they will respond by voting to let everyone out.

Barr's experience with police is not the same as the experience of the people who wrote the Bill of Rights. But Barr will find out soon enough what their experience was. One day the people who know he is the bad actor, the problem, will come for him.

Every day they come up with new scams to get around the Bill of Rights. One is jailhouse confession witnesses, where they coerce other inmates to say an inmate confessed. Another is local regulation of police, where the local political establishment has the discretion to overlook police misconduct which predetermines the outcome of a jury trial.

All the people who object to what I am saying, are socialists at heart. Scientists are socialist, because their brains are constrained. They imagine the world as if seen from a single vantage point, like a laboratory experiment. If I could centrally plan production and feed everyone I would. If I could just lock up the people I know are committing the crimes, I would. They don't realize that civilization is, as Hayek described in "The Use of Knowledge in Society", a complex knowledge process. And you can't just replace the process with the outcome we know everyone desires. No matter how many times socialists vote to try. Just give everyone healthcare! Just lock up the criminals! Just invent a new green energy source! Such a simple fix.



Exactly, you support her getting life without parole from age 21 for hanging out with the wrong people, for doing something wrong. Not for doing a specific crime that is actually punishable by life.

You are not so much evil as dumb. You know you could never win an election, saying anyone with a past drug arrest who is in the vicinity of a crime, gets life without parole without a jury trial. But you support essentially that policy, when you say it is okay for police to frame someone who was doing something wrong and hanging out with the wrong people.

So you know your policy could never win an election. But you still get unhappy when you lose an election, when people figure out what your preferred policy is. And you don't know why you lost, why people are so crazy to vote for socialism. You don't remember it was you who hid the real policy, who pretended the election was about something else.

And it is incredible that you are stuck on this idea that "what it was that she had 7 lbs of" is relevant. She had a bottle of a liquid that was legal to own use and possess. But there is nothing she could have possessed, not the blood of infants, that any Republican has ever said in a political campaign would make her guilty of murder a year later. And yet here you are, implying that whether giving her life without parole for murder is just, depends on what she had in a bottle a year earlier.

You don't need to tell me, I know you believe it is right and good to frame people for murder who have past drug arrests. I am only pointing out that it does not work out so well for you in the long run, it is myopic.

I am educating people as to exactly what policies Republicans prefer, and the tricks they use to get around the Bill of Rights. And if Republicans don't get a clue, Republicans will lose all the close states (when they are not running against a prosecutor).

If Biden loses this election, it will be because he chose a prosecutor as VP. And here Barr is saying the problem is prosecutors don't lock enough people up. Maybe he is saying the problem is sentences for gun crime are not high enough? The penalty for gun crimes and murder is already max. Barr is saying prosecutors are not tough enough getting the max. But if Biden loses this election, it will be because the voters don't like successful prosecutors.

Here Biden is realizing his mistake, and talking up his time as a public defender. And Barr comes along and says police know who should be locked up, it is all that stuff from the Bill of Rights that is broken. Barr is evil, but evil is normal for man. It's dumb, and that is my problem with it.

You said "Barr didn't say lock them up without a trial." That is basically what Barr advocates, he wants a shortcut from "what police know" to prison. I am sure whatever his shortcut is, will work just as well to send the innocent to prison as the guilty. So it comes back to police, not juries, "knowing" who is guilty and who is innocent. Because after that, it is a railroad.

But you took it a step further and said something totally sick and wacked out:

"Regardless, if police departments could be more proactive and target/profile the bad guys for prosecution (in a court of law with a non-political prosecutor), crime rates would plummet."

How do police proactively target people whom they know are bad, except by framing them? What is this "easy fix"? Let's be specific, prescribe some policy changes. Because all prosecutors are political, it just depends who is voting. And if they can be "proactive" they will run right past the "shooters" to their political opponents.



You are a sick, sick evil man. Someone gets life in prison without parole for a crime that didn't happen, and you say "she must have been doing something wrong." The cop didn't do something wrong? Cops are animals, not to be held to the standard of right and wrong?

You said "I do find it interesting that you are being vague about the package in the initial interaction. Kind of sounds like that bad situation I speak of."

I'm trolling you. Here you say you don't support someone being in prison for a crime they didn't commit. But you are obsessed that what she had in a bottle a year earlier was the cause of her being locked up for murder. They framed her! Police faked evidence! They coerced witnesses to tell obvious lies, which are favored by the rules of evidence, in a scam that is voter-approved specifically to frame drug users.

You absolutely think it is right for police to frame her, because she was falsely accused a year earlier. Your mind is like a fly to light to that concept, you cannot help yourself or even recognize what you believe.

What she had in the bottle was a sex placebo, similar in concept to what they sell at gas stations, which she used herself. Or which other people including me used on her. She is a brain-damaged young girl, and guys would stick anything they wanted in her mouth. But I know you, I know your mind, how it works. You don't believe that. You believe what you read in the newspaper. You know it must be true, 100 newspaper articles can't be wrong. And in the end you really truly believe she should be framed for murder for it.

It has nothing to do with me getting therapy. It has to do with Republicans being honest about the policies they prefer. Because then they won't be forever confused why black people vote for gay marriage and gun control and socialism and reduced policing. Suddenly the world will make sense to you, and you won't have to all cry together on Breitbart all day, about why the world is crazy and people vote Democrat.

It is with your support, with your approval, to please you, that my friend is currently serving life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen. Wait, what was in the bottle a year earlier?



It's like AG Bill Barr said, everyone knows who the shooters are in the neighborhood, and here they are, in this case we found them. It's just a matter of sending the Thin Blue Line over there to clean them out and make the world a better place. And don't let those costumed known armed thugs get away with any unexplained hand movements.

Debating with the Law-and-Order Mob

There is no First Amendment to emphasize the importance of police. On the contrary, much of the Bill of Rights is designed to limit and fight them. This despite murderers getting away with it being one of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

Do you know how many people get life sentences, based on stories that incarcerated drug felons are coerced to invent for sentence reductions? They are much worse than newspapers. Newspapers print stuff, and it is out there forever for you to examine. Jurors hear witnesses once, and are forced to remember days of testimony, and decide in a few hours if it is true, without even being allowed to look at a transcript. Rules of evidence won't even allow most facts, and are designed to favor the stories of lying drug felons over every other type of evidence.

Afterwards, there is no category of appeal where you get to say "I can prove the witness lied, look at the transcript." When you get convicted based on stories invented by lying drug felons - which is the standard way that our justice system produces convictions in major cases - it is over.

Here is a 21-year-old girl being framed for shooting a man when he was fleeing:

prosecutors lie that victim was shot while fleeing

It never happened, and she is currently serving two life sentences without parole for it. The first person to write down the false narrative was the Orlando Sentinel:

The Lying Sentinel

The story she was charged with was invented in a strip club, based on previous false news stories about her being arrested with GHB, which also never happened. Unlike "hands up don't shoot" which was disputed by a mob and the US DOJ, there is no institution or mechanism, or even a person with any money, to fight these lies.


Innocent people getting life in prison based on lies because they were in the wrong place is not the law. Legislators could not get elected based on that platform. And suddenly the law is important to you when it is a cop, or someone in your family. You don't like the law, but suddenly you are all about the law and particulars when it comes to Breonna Taylor. So essentially you are saying what every member of a mob says "Lock up the people I don't like." And then their families vote for Andrew Gillum for 50 years, and you look to point the finger for a lost country. Point it at yourself.

In a country where weed is legal or mainstream everywhere, and you can get a mandatory minimum life sentence for a drug crime which the victim paid you to commit, using lies to give life sentences to all the innocent people who are friends with drug dealers or murderers, is a way to lose enough percentage of votes, for socialists to win elections and free the people who are actually guilty.

Do you not see the flip side, where every time you convict an innocent young retarded person based on police lies for hanging out with thugs, left-wing people respond with laws and judges that free actual murderers. So your silly disposition that lying, and breaking the law, is good if it punishes innocent people for hanging out with drug dealers, leads to the opposite of what you want. It leads to leftists getting elected in statewide and national elections, and the entire country turning into Chicago.

That is the pitfall. Which Republicans like you are walking into like Mr. Magoo. You simply cannot win elections in a Democracy by supporting police in the crime of perjury. The plurality of the Bill of Rights is designed to fight lying police.

Criminals getting away when there is no evidence except coerced lies and coerced claims of confessions, is what those who wrote The Bill of Rights and crossed the ocean in a sailboat for, would "LOVE to see happen." China is the country that your vision fits. Not the Bill of Rights.

On top of it, you as a taxpayer have already spent at least $500,000 to give Mandi Jackson a 70-year sentence for something that didn't even happen. The appeals court will probably intervene at some point, forcing you to spend millions more before the end of that 70 years. For something that did not even happen. It is very easy for you to say "screw her, she was hanging out with strip-club people, lock her up." But at the end of it, it is not so easy as it is coming out of your mouth. The taxpayer will have spent over $1 million, her family will vote Democrat for 50 years, the victim's family is tortured with trials and lies about what really happened. And Democrats get elected.

Is it really such a cake position for you, to support police perjury, and locking up undesirables based on lies?



Police and prosecutors pay no penalty for breaking the rules and victimizing the innocent. Making sure innocent people can bond out gives them a much better chance to escape injustice. There is no hope to stop police from breaking the law. Sadly, just letting people out is the best available remedy.



And then one day you get arrested and you realize you knew nothing. You must think we should get rid of jury trials. Because everyone who is arrested is guilty. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights were not so dumb to think everyone who gets arrested is guilty. And cop worshippers tell me over and over they don't care if someone is innocent. They want to lock up undesirables.



Most major criminal cases are built on the coerced testimony of felons. And don't argue when I say "most" because it is your side which doesn't like to require and publish statistics. It is much easier to find a felon with an active drug case looking at a mandatory minimum, and coerce him to say what happened (as long as what he says can get convictions), than to collect evidence. And once police have that narrative, they will search for and manufacture evidence to support that narrative. And they will avoid canvassing the neighborhood for video or finding other evidence that might muddy their narrative. And there is no regulatory body to prosecute and punish police for this misconduct. In fact it is rewarded when they get a higher conviction rate.

By the time the defendant gets a lawyer six months later, all that video from the neighborhood will be gone. Items from the scene which could have been tested for DNA but weren't, because the result wouldn't fit the police narrative, are gone. Witnesses whom police didn't write their names down because their stories didn't agree, are gone. And your side is against laws like they have in New York, to give the accused access to the scene and to witness names sooner.

DNA can be used to convict the innocent. DNA swabs can be logged with intentionally vague labels. And then crime scene techs invent on the stand exactly where and how they collected it, to fit with their narrative. And again there is no deterrent, no punishment if they get caught. Like this:

seminolescam.com/gloves

And I know you will say it is good that cop lied, because the defendant needed to be locked up for life without parole, because he is guilty. Or at least he is an undesirable who should not have been doing what he was doing. And so jury trials are an obstacle to what you want, and it is appropriate to hack them with mock trials when necessary.



You want to lock up undesirables, regardless of guilt of a particular crime. And you will support police lying in mock trials to achieve that goal. But instead of having police lie, or coercing felons to lie, you should seek what you want through the democratic process. You should get a candidate to run in support of amending the Constitution, to enable like a military tribunal decided by elected judges, or a ballot measure with the names of the accused, in certain cases. And you should support new laws to lock up undesirables for what they are actually doing. Like someone with a prior drug conviction who is present when a crime is committed, gets 15 years. But I know you also don't like democracy. You want to lock up undesirables without doing it within the law through a democratic process.



So you admit you think it is fair game to lock up anyone in a crime area. And then you wonder why black people, who suffer from the most crime, are most opposed to the police. They must be irrational voting for socialists.



You didn't say "I have never been picked up BECAUSE I don't commit murder." You said "But I have never been picked up BECAUSE IM NOT IN CRIME AREAS BY CHOICE."

So you admit they are picking up people who have not committed murder, and have not even committed a crime, but are just in crime areas.



You are completely ignoring the "grudge" of people who find the justice system has flaws, and of innocents who have been victimized by police without consequence. Your solution is not punish police who engage in misconduct. You solution is "People who live in high crime or drug areas: Stop living there! People whose friends or family members are drug addicts? Euthanize them. Police want to stop and search you against the Bill of Rights? Screw the Bill of Rights, comply. Cop plants a bag of weed on you or lies that you reached for his gun? There should be no independent institution to initiate investigations, punish cops, and deter that misconduct, as well as punish those who fail to report it."



Usually drug addicts are the star witnesses in major criminal cases. They are so desperate, they will swear lies on the stand to get out of prison and get more drugs. So police and prosecutors love desperate drug users, because it is so easy to get them to lie to convict the innocent.

Do you think it should be illegal for felons and people with drug arrests to be let out of prison as a reward for testifying? If not, don't complain when a system built on the coerced testimony of drug addicts is criticized.



So if you are there when a crime is committed, and police coerce drug addicts to lie about you, and prosecutors let drug felons out of prison as a reward for lying about you at trial, the solution is don't be nearby when crimes happen?



You should prefer China, when they shoot drug addicts without a trial.



De Tocqueville contemplated what would happen when a critical mass of people realized they could vote themselves free money from the treasury. He never contemplated what would happen when a critical mass of people realized they could vote their family members out of prison.



I am sticking up for the innocent, and the punishment and criminalization of police and prosecutors who victimize them.

I guess you think Thomas Jefferson, who wanted to drill a half-inch hole through women's noses for sodomy, was sticking up for criminals if he supported the Bill of Rights?

I guess you think those who demanded independence from The King, including a grievance that murderers were getting away with it in mock trials, were sticking up for murderers when they supported that no accused should be compelled to be a witness against himself?



My friend is serving two life sentences without parole from age 21, because she cheated on her boyfriend and went home with her boss and did drugs with him, because her rent was late. Everything else is gossip. And I guarantee you support what happened to her.



All that takes decades, and more than all the money an entire family will ever hope to have. And the cop worshippers fight them every fraction of a millimeter.



I am sensitive to Andrew Gillum coming with 0.4% of winning, Republicans sneaking by with a few thousand votes in Florida and Georgia. And then Republicans say whatever reason people are voting for the other side, for socialists, we don't care. We want even more of it. Anyone who doesn't like it must be irrational or "sensitive" or just an undesirable who is too stupid to simply move out of a high crime area.

We don't have any statistics on religion and crime. So I don't really know how many jews are being locked up. But I guarantee if you started accusing jews of being criminal like people accused blacks of being criminal, you would be censored. And I can't think of a black person whom so many people would have looked the other way for, as they did for Madoff and Weinstein and Epstein.



You should support a candidate with a platform of adding a checkbox "jew" to arrest reports.



You would love to meet me in person? Behavior that is incompatible with society? You would rather destroy me before I procreate another imbecile? The Bill of Rights is a big problem for you. Because trials are an obstacle to doing what you believe is right and good, an obstacle to cleaning the undesirables off the streets.



You said "99.8% of the dipshits in jail, are there for a good reason." It is true that cops are a lot better at filling up the prisons and the justice system with incompetent and relatively harmless dipshits, than at investigating and convicting actual criminal menaces.



With so many crimes to defend, most defense attorneys do suck. Result is a lot of families of innocents voting Democrat.

Would you support an independent institution at the state level, to require reports of every time a felon or someone with an active case testifies or makes a sworn statement or an informal proffer, and whether that person is a co-defendant, a witness, or a jailhouse so-called witness? Or would you rather I was unable to prove those numbers?



There is a system without state-level regulation, that allows the local political majority to overlook perjury in trials, if police have been able to convince the local paper the defendant is an undesirable.

It is because the police say the crime is terrible, and portray the defendant as an undesirable, that they are able to get away with a mock trial in the case of people nobody cares about. Certainly between a drug-using cheater sl*t and a hero cop, nobody is going to lay a finger on the hero cop for faking evidence, to protect a drug-using cheater sl*t from serving 70 years for a crime that did not happen.

I agree there is no law on the books for people to get what they want, which is to lock up undesirables in mock trials. But I think they should be open and honest about what they want, instead of coercing drug felons to lie in court, and overlooking police misconduct, to get what they want. They should seek what they want through the democratic process.

People who say perjury is a useful tool to lock up undesirables, should support a politician with a platform of amending the Constitution to remove the right to a jury trial. They should get elected and pass a law that there can be like a military tribunal of elected judges, or a ballot measure with the names of the accused, in certain cases. And people with felony convictions or who have been arrested for drugs, get 15 years for being in the vicinity of a crime.

Would you support an independent institution in the executive branch, to initiate investigations and prosecute police and prosecutors, who lie to convict drug addict hookers of crimes that didn't happen? No. Because you support locking up hooker drug addicts for crimes that didn't happen, because they are hooker drug addicts. Even though there is no law that says it.

I heard from somebody on here recently that there is no utopia, and there are going to be thousands of instances of police misconduct and injustice in a country of 330 million people. So 30 dead cops is really nothing, unless cops are some kind of overclass. Do you think more than 30 innocent people were convicted of murder last year? I know one, who got life without parole from age 21. And I guarantee not a cop on the planet cares one bit. So stick your dead cops in the sewer for all I care.

You would say how can they care, there is no record, no proof. That's right. The system is designed to trumpet the death of every policeman, and conceal and bury any example of them victimizing the innocent. Not many real victims of police are so lucky as to get a mob of race hustlers like the fake victims. But the fake victims get a lot of supporters from those people who were not so lucky.

Cops get a news story when they get killed. Most of the times cops lie about the innocent, there is no video camera. There is no news story. There is no way to prove it, and only immunity and a stone wall of silence and resistance if you do. The taxpayer pays for unlimited revenge when cops are killed. When cops victimize the innocent, families are destroyed trying to scrape together what little they can to fight it for years. And as often as not, nobody even believes them. They don't get strangers arguing their case on the Internet. Dead cops' families will never know the wretched obscurity of the families of the innocents whose lives are taken like ants, by lying immune cops and prosecutors.

I don't hope to make any moral arguments to benighted animals. I am simply pointing out that over decades, the families of innocents victimized by police and prosecutors accumulate to millions of voters with intense passion. Republicans squeak by in Florida and Georgia with a few thousand votes, and lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 2.8 million. So over time, police and prosecutors victimizing innocents will hand the country to socialists with a greater inevitability than immigration. And I don't like socialists.

Maybe idealists who complain about the "hands up don't shoot" witnesses should look a little more closely at a criminal justice system built around the coerced testimony of felons. Unlike lies which are printed in the news media and examined forever, jurors are completely snowed by lying felons who take over trials with colorful storytelling that dominates every other kind of evidence. This includes co-defendants who cut a deal, random criminals, and the jailhouse confession scam. Jurors get a few hours to consider them, they don't even have a copy of the transcript, and there is no category of appeal where you get to say "I can prove the coerced felons lied, look at the transcript."

And no, I don't really have stats on how many drug cases are built on the coerced testimony of felons, those stats aren't compiled. But I do see a lot of people angry about it, and their preferred candidate Andrew Gillum coming within 0.4%. That is a stat which I cannot deny and do not like.

At least you were able to track down the statistics. Hospitals, even in terrible universal healthcare systems, are required to write down centrally collect, and publish statistics of physician activity, and hold them liable. Not so much in the universal justice system, where local police will refuse to even write down any record of a policeman's wrongdoing.

It is a disgrace every time a pro-police person makes any argument where they refer to statistics, or a lack thereof. Because pro-police people support not requiring standardized, detailed, and reliable reports - with penalties in the event of reporting failures - and centrally collecting and publishing statistics, of the conduct of police like doctors.

Every time the anti Bill of Rights cop overclass cult accuses a BLM supporter of lying, people should point out which side doesn't want to write down how many convictions use the coerced testimony of felons, or which cops have been accused of perjury. The cop-worship side lives off perjury. All those people who hate felons and dislike lying should get this picture stuck in their faces:



I am tired of cop worshippers complaining that the other side lies, and nobody pointing out the obvious.

Your question was "How are 'police lying'?" I "backed it up" as you requested with hard documentation of police lying, which you do not care to look at. This alone proves several things:

1) You are an MSNBC-type parrot who is not actually interested in critical thinking and exploring evidence,
2) You so lack self awareness, that you sincerely imagine you could be educated about a complex social phenomenon in the single "succinct sentence" as you requested, and
3) You are not very bright, if you think web browsers you are using will expose you to any harm by loading a web page.

Let's assume that by "how" you mean what are the general circumstances and the nature of police lies? There are many categories, including:

1) telling witnesses what the police narrative is, and telling them it is their moral duty to help get justice, before getting their statements
2) losing the names of witnesses who do not back up the police narrative
3) avoiding searching for evidence that could contradict the police narrative
4) staging and faking evidence to fit the police narrative
5) lying in police reports, and in sworn affidavits to obtain arrest and search warrants,
6) straight up lying in court


This arises from the nature of human beings to be ill-informed and to want justice, and to see fair trials as an obstacle to what they want. Once the police have given the media a sensational story to broadcast for clicks, and if they are able to convince the public the defendant is undesirable, then all police misconduct will be overlooked and not even written down, if it enables the local political establishment or mob to achieve their desired outcome in a mock trial. So guilt or innocence is decided outside of trials, as is the tradition in human history. And the demand for such a process results in the refusal to create any institution which could deter police lying in support of the conviction of those either police themselves, the media, the mob, or the political establishment already thinks are guilty, and the conviction of those who are such incompetent or broke nobodies, that framing them for crimes enhances a mirage of police fighting crime.

I will additionally point out several categories of lies that police, and their supporters, support. This includes the coerced testimony of felons, where they are threatened with crazy sentences, but then let out of prison if and only if they tell a story which enables prosecutors to convict someone else. People are reluctant to write down what percentage of major criminal convictions are built around the testimony of accused and convicted felons, whether they be co-defendants, third-party actual witnesses, or jailhouse confession so-called witnesses, who were coerced or paid in some way if, and only if, they recite the prosecution narrative. And nor do rules of evidence permit you to tell the jury what these testifying felons have been convicted of, or that there is no penalty for lying in court - even if it can be plainly proven they are lying - and in fact there is a reward for lying, a reward given by government employees. So jurors are like you, they don't know that prosecutors live off lies, and there is no worry of being caught, and in fact a political reward for locking up those the mob has been told are guilty, based on lies.

I offered many examples of police lying. You only looked at the first example. The nice thing about the first example, is you don't care the defendant was falsely accused of shooting a man who was fleeing just like "hands up don't shoot". In other words, the truth doesn't matter if undesirables are accused, but the truth is a big deal if police are accused. There was no camera on that street in Ferguson. But you will only accept the testimony of lying felons against other undesirables, not against police.

You advocate for a class system, with an immune police overclass like feudal Japan. My objection to that, in favor of the equality the USA was founded on, is proof that I am the most right-wing person on here.

You said a minute ago we don't have video cameras. And so in many cases we have no choice but to use that testimony of felons who were present. Except unlike those people on the street in Ferguson who got nothing, prosecutors will use felon testimony, and let felons out of prison, if and only if the felons say what the prosecution wants. And if they don't make stories up that the prosecution likes, often as little as 14 words, they will spend years in prison.



Just the opposite is true. Case law prevents you from telling the jury the truth about criminals who testify, or calling them liars when they lie. The lies of felons can be used to admit evidence, and to prevent an appeals court or jury instruction from considering a case "circumstantial." Lying felons can tell a complete story with every detail of the crime in a single breath. It otherwise takes five days, 30 witnesses, and 100 items of evidence, to tell the same story broken up into tiny pieces. Lying felons are not held to the same standard as other evidence which contradicts physical evidence or is confusing. Lying felons will call hearsay or gossip or lies a confession. Lying felons are mixed in with normal witnesses. And prosecutors choose the most colorful convicts, so they are the only witness half the jurors even wake up for. That is why prosecutors build most major cases by coercing felons, who would not even be allowed to vote, to lie against the accused.

Coerced testimony is a loophole to admit garbage evidence, and take advantage of naive jurors who would never guess what a cesspool it is. Jurors are never educated about how the deal system really works, and what garbage coerced testimony actually is. So coerced testimony is like an "in case of no evidence break glass" tool which can be used to convict innocents and guilty equally, and up the overall conviction rate.

To the extent plea bargaining and coerced testimony is a sophisticated game, it favors habitual offenders and sociopaths, at the expense of first-time offenders, the innocent, the incompetent, and the honest. Someone who has been convicted of burglary, for example, knows more about the necessary details to prove burglary, which details he can then invent and include in any offers to the State. Someone who has been convicted in a trial, knows that perjury at trial is rewarded by the State rather than punished. An innocent person who is arrested for the first time knows nothing about coerced testimony. An innocent person who has never been to court before, does not know that the State will actually reward a felon who lies in court to convict him. By the time the innocent accused wises up, he will be serving life. He might then offer his own lies, to get out by securing the convictions of a series of novices and incompetents, often as a jailhouse confession so-called witness.

The Shire Reeve is a tool of the bourgeois mob, whether in Republican or Democrat areas, the law doesn't matter. But of course both would like to change the locus of control in areas where the law is controlled by the other side. Force is applied by who and against whom the mob desires, without regard to the law. Cops and rioters are exempt in different places on different days. But of course anyone can defend himself against a criminal rioter. It is government employees who are immune from justice that one must be vigilant against.

The Republican party lost their mind after "hands up don't shoot" and became like a cop-worship cult. The lies told by witnesses on that street in Ferguson are nothing compared to the lies prosecutors coerce felons to tell in court, to convict the innocent every day. Our Founders came here to escape mob justice and wrote the Bill of Rights. Now the Republican party has gone British, wanting to lock up all undesirables without trials. And the suburbs have turned into Japanese fiefs where their private soldiers are above the law.



Generally a good thing? Across what subset of history and geography?

If you like the democratic process, you should run on a platform of repealing the Second Amendment. Not try to get around and subvert the democratic process to achieve your preferences.



Your side refuses to write down complaints and record statistics. You then disgust me when you call instances which you refuse to record and report, unusual. A structure which does not deter police and prosecutor misconduct (provided it is approved by the local political establishment), enables the same phenomenon over and over everywhere, like the laws of physics. It is more like an apple falling than man bites dog. Everywhere throughout history have the laws of force been equal, and used against the commoners by the political establishment, where their soldiers are above the law and answer only to local daimyos.



Over and over, I hear from people in the pages of this web site, who support police misconduct and mock trials to lock up undesirables. In other words, if a person has a past drug arrest in Google, even if it was a false accusation, many Republicans will look the other way on police using lies, or coercing felons to lie in court, to lock up that undesirable, for whatever the media quotes the cops as accusing him of, for clicks.

I have a friend serving two life sentences right now for a crime that didn't happen. And much of the time when I provide proof of this to Republicans, they say look at her, she has a past drug arrest! They don't even care that it was a false accusation, proved to not be an illegal drug by the crime lab.

So there is no sicker bunch of freedom-hating people eager to lock up anyone who doesn't share their lifestyle or religion, than many Republicans fans of this website, including fans of Nolte, and probably Nolte himself. Probably the Taliban themselves also have this trait of calling other people they disagree with, some sort of "Taliban" the same as Breitbart John Nolte.

Nobody hates freedom more than the female Republican Karens who make up the cop-worship movement.

It is not about having cases reviewed, that is a cheezy solution where lawyers again want to be reviewed by their peers. The problem is there is no deterrent - no punishment - for police and prosecutors who victimize the innocent. And in fact there is a reward, to the extent police, prosecutors, and judges, are captive to the local political establishment in a tyranny of the majority. The correct solution is not some silly review board, but an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to require reporting, penalize reporting failures like the SEC, and proactively initiate investigations into police and prosecutors. Rather than the haphazard way it works today, where they are investigated by criminals, prosecuted by the mob, and tried at the ballot box at the national level.

I remember John Nolte whining like a pansy when it came to making cops face the law without immunity like everyone else. Or cops even being regulated as much as sellers of travel are regulated at the state level. And Nolte also whines about the terrible quality of universal healthcare. But he has no problem serving a cheapy universal justice product to people whom he considers underclass. Nolte is too much of a sad cheapy to pay up for the police product he wants.

I know, every time I post here I get the retard Taliban running around squawking like chickens because I have blasphemed against their cop religion. What is sillier, my web site, or the movie "Kindergarten Cop?" Which one is an example of protected political speech? Which one addresses serious topics? Okay, now which one would the Pat Patrix retard Taliban like to cancel, my website and comments? Or silly movies?

I know, people will do anything to defend the cop-worship cult from reality. First thing they will say is if you don't worship cops, your family will be at the mercy of rapists and carjackers like the 1970's. The last thing they say is come on, we refuse to write down any complaints of police misconduct, anyone who complains must be a crazy liar, cops only very rarely do misconduct, so far as anyone knows.

John Nolte is the one who wants to defund the police by refusing to pay for liability insurance or salaries high enough to attract cops without immunity. And it is because Nolte refuses to pay what he has to for police, that we have halfwit clown cops locking up incompetents and victimizing the innocent and being run out of their cities for it, and rising crime. Or even worse, people voting Democrat in national elections because the local Republican majority won't touch the lying scumbag cops who are their private soldiers, above the law like in Greenwood, Colorado.

Nolte should retract his Breitbart article about police immunity which was essentially an article saying he doesn't want to fund good policing.

Do you support raising police salaries high enough to attract cops without needing to give them immunity or look the other way when they victimize the innocent? Do you think cops are a high enough life form that they can withstand regulation at the state level like even sellers of travel or people who braid hair are regulated? Or are cops like zoo animals, completely beneath any regulation or accountability.



I am sad that what Stephen Miller is saying is 99% BS and 1% police need to be paid more. Far from locking up major criminals, police spend most of their resources locking up incompetent idiots who run when they say stop. And far from investigating major crimes, police solve most major crimes by coercing felons to lie in court, often about crimes they were not even a witness to. Then they lock up an innocent person whom the news media canceled long before the trial, and march at the front of a parade. Our police have descended into the kind of sad fraud that the Founders were aware has been popular all throughout history when they wrote the Bill of Rights.

My friend is an extreme victim of police misconduct, she lost her life because of them. It surprised me there is no institution to prevent or deter what happened to her. It also surprised me her situation was not unique. All over the street and on the web I heard from people with similar stories. They were like yeah, duh, the cops are lazy and they will frame you. They were like yeah, duh, my last five boyfriends were cops, and they are as human as anyone, lazy and will frame a person, but the difference is they face no consequences.

Far from being silent, people complain about it all the time. But when they go to the police station, the cops refuse to talk to them or write anything down. This I have seen 100% of the time almost as often as I have seen cops lie. And when you go to Republican politicians they say what is this, hands up don't shoot? And when you go to Democrat politicians, they say see, Republicans are evil, we need socialism to tear down capitalism and deal with intergenerational trauma and the environment, a crooked cop is an environmental problem. It is sad to see Stephen Miller use this same kind of racism-is-environmentalism tactic saying cancel-culture-is-crime. Cancel culture is not traffic stops and drug arrests, it is angry libs on Twitter. Nice try.

Republicans stubbornly deny that the justice product has any flaws that can be improved, they deny the need for improvement, they deny that it can be fixed in any way, they are too much sissies to offend the minority cop-worship cult. I have heard the silent majority, and they are not who Stephen Miller is hearing from or imagines they are.

The first people to be canceled are people who have been falsely accused of a crime, held without bond, and sensationalized for clicks by eager accomplices in the media. Newspapers have no investigators left, they just copy-paste the police Twitter feed, and juice it up where they need to with plain lies and fabrications for clicks. The newspapers are in the business of destroying innocent people who have been accused of crimes, just so they can show banner ads to the Breitbart mob or deliver their last paper to the bingo crowd.

The Breitbart mob wants to cancel all people who were even accused of a crime, by holding them without bond. There is not a single "constitutional conservative" among them who supports the Bill of Rights. They are a common mob like you could find in any city in history, or in the MIddle East today. The Breitbart mob is a religious cop-worship Taliban obsessed with locking up undesirables. Nobody who supports police has ever been canceled, it is the easiest and safest position on Earth to take. But say anything against the police and the entire Republican party will come down on your head without making any counter-argument except that good policing is too expensive, or any effort to improve the police product will take us back to the 1970's and you will get raped.

And I don't know what Stephen Miller is talking about with the Feds. Republican counties want to lock up drug users with mock trials. The Feds want to lock up Donald Trump with mock trials. The Feds think Republicans are the undesirables. You will never convince them there is any glory in arresting firework throwers.

Stephen Miller is caught in a time capsule, fighting the "rehabilitation" philosophy of the 1960's. The relevant number is not what percentage of people in the country believe X or Y. It is how many Republican voters - suburban males, white rural voters, young people - have suffered police misconduct or are turned off by the cop-worship cult. And compare that number to how many thousand votes Republicans are winning or losing by in Georgia, Florida, Minnesota, and nationwide. I am so impressed with the policing turnaround in New York City, it gave us Hillary Clinton and Sandy Hook Cortez, instead of Rick Lazio and Al D'Amato. The police canceled themselves in New York State and then say "dim doo nuppin." Or better yet "I'm not that kinda guy!"

There is a counter right on here of how many people want to cancel me, they are at the bottom left next to the down arrow.



LOL, 99.999% of the time police refuse to write down any record of police misconduct. Then jerks come along and say it is not a problem. You create an independent institution in the executive branch like the SEC to require reporting and punish reporting failures and initiate investigations, then we can have an honest debate over exactly what the numbers are. You want to hide the numbers so you can continue to make dishonest arguments like you just did. No other profession gets to do that. Other professions like medicine have reporting, and they use the numbers to try to improve their product.



Whom can the victim say it to? It costs money every time the victim tries. Democrat politicians answer yes, Republicans are evil, vote for us, it is an environmental problem. Republican politicians say what is this, hands up don't shoot? The local political establishment says why are we going to take down our beloved cop, for the sake of a person the newspaper said is a drug criminal for clicks? And the social-justice mob only shows up and takes it to the national ballot box when a black person dies on video. So yes, there is literally nobody to go to, and I advocate creating a new independent institution the victim can say something to. You are against such an institution, and you know why you are.



People who lose a market for their product should improve their product, not hide the flaws and cram it down people's throats with a monopoly like the DMV or the post office. Pay police more. Remove immunity. Create an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level to punish reporting failures like the SEC, and initiate investigations into police and prosecutors. Even the UK NHS requires detailed reporting to try to improve.

After the creation of the SEC did they sell less stock? No, they sold more stock than ever. Because stock promoters' reputations were protected from the worst actors among them.

The way police are regulated at the local level, creates Republican safe districts where they don't care if the police are losing them national and statewide elections. In a place like Seminole County, Florida, they don't mind losing 10,000 votes from crooked police, the Republicans are still untouchable. Then comes the Governor or President election, and Republicans wish they had those votes that the local political establishment threw away to satisfy the mob, locking up undesirables in mock trials.

If you don't want to pay more to get good candidates, then you are the one defunding the police.



Do you support a new independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to require reports and punish reporting failures like the SEC, and to initiate investigations into police and prosecutors? If not, then you prefer to talk about what is in the movies on one side, and what is in your own myth or imagination on the other side, like global warming. You don't support collecting statistics to supply honest debate and research. Like a leftist, you want to punish those who disagree with you based on myth.



They don't discipline their crooked cops. I hear story after story. Quite the opposite, the mainstream of cops are rewarded for cheating, to lock up as many as possible of the 20% of people considered undesirable by the local political establishment.

Then those people's families and sympathizers vote Democrat in statewide and national elections, and add up year after year, to more than Republicans are winning by in swing states.

I get told over and over right on this web site, that people approve of police lying to give my friend life without parole from age 21, because she has a drug arrest in Google. The crime lab tested the suspected drugs, the police were wrong about the drugs, the charges were dropped. But that never goes into Google. And so they made some half retarded cop LEO of the Year for faking evidence to lock her up.

And so here I am with her family, a member of the death-to-cops mob, praying everyday for nihilism. Because you don't want crooked cops deterred. You say let the municipality deal with it. But you know they won't, and you don't want them to. You want people to hate cops because you are myopic.

I think what it is, is local cops are actually dumb enough, to think they are the only ones lying and cheating and getting away with it. They don't realize there is a crew of three crooked jerks just like them in the next county. County after county, it adds up to Democrats getting elected.



That is why we need deterrents, punishments for people who lie in court, so that we can have a functioning product to deter other crimes. Right now the local political establishment or mob will overlook or reward perjury, if it predetermines the outcome of trials to match the outcome the news media has told them they should want. People who disagree with the outcome then vote in state and national elections with a hope of rigging more trials their way. Police are the heroes in the process, immune to any consequences for doing to undesirables what the local majority wants done to them without regard to guilt of a particular crime. But rather than be honest this is what is going on to let people vote on whether they like this process, perjury is never recorded or reported. When someone tries to clarify the process so honest candidates can run for or against it, people deny what is going on and call anyone who exposes the process crazy or a liar or a drug criminal.



In the current process, police are not punished for victimizing the innocent, and only get any friction at all when a black person dies on video. Police are investigated by criminals and prosecuted by the mob. 99.9% of actual misconduct is overlooked, and a few instances of fake misconduct are blown up into national issues. When a stock goes up before a merger announcement, does the SEC need a mob to demand an investigation? When a homeless person is murdered, or there is a crop of marijuana in a national forest, do police wait for the mob to notice it and demand they investigate it? There needs to be an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to require reporting and punish reporting failures like the SEC, and to investigate police and prosecutors proactively.



Right now the mob you dislike is an official and designed part of the process. I propose fixing that and replacing it with a more rational and ordered and consistent and less haphazard process.



You incentivize bureaucrats with elections. Right now, police and prosecutors and judges are captive to local politics. If the local mob thinks "the right thing" is giving someone with a prior drug arrest life for being in the vicinity of a crime, that is what police will be rewarded for lying to achieve. Then the local minority of undesirables will try to fight back by voting in statewide and national elections.

An independent institution at the state level could punish reporting failures like the SEC, and deal with instances of local police and prosecutor misconduct individually, not as national election topics. Because they would not be investigating their peers, or responding to local politics. Then that institution can be monitored by the voter at the statewide level, which is where the process was ultimately going to be monitored and incentivized anyway. Except this way is more efficient and direct feedback to the specific government service, not lumped in with marxism and other policies in national elections.

And voters simply demand less perjury through deterrence by punishment, so the guilty are locked up and the innocent go free, rather than demanding general policies that lock up more innocents or release more guilty people.



How about this guy, the prosecutor paid a witness cash to lie ,and he spent 20 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit...

Police love sadistically framing an undesirable. Because they know the newspapers and public only reward their work because of such coliseum displays.



You should support candidates who run on a platform of locking up anyone with a past drug arrest for 15 years, for being in the vicinity of a crime. You would lose elections. But you would be much happier. Because you would know why you lost. Right now you lose elections when people figure out that is what your candidate stands for, even though he never openly says it. Then you get angry thinking that people voted for socialism or who knows what.



If every person who is arrested is guilty, then you don't need jury trials. So you should support a candidate who runs on a platform of amending the Constitution to get rid of the Bill of Rights. You know you would lose that election. And so you are driven to dishonesty, when you use police lying the same way the left uses the Supreme Court, to get a result that you could not openly and honestly get through the democratic process.

Your habitual offender laws work great. They are used mostly for two things, 1) to threaten con artists with life, to pressure them to lie and say other inmates confessed to whatever they are accused of, and 2) to lock up sloppy incompetents for life, who are too dumb to lie for the prosecutor in court, and get arrested twice for every dumb crime they actually commit.



If you are sick and tired of something, you should find out what it is like to hear from a family member over a scratchy phone for 50 years, because a cop lied, or a prosecutor coerced a felon to lie in court. You are sick and tired enough to complain on Disqus. Those people are sick and tired enough to go out and risk years in prison to burn down a police station.

You don't know sick and tired, until you have a family member suffer unredressed injustice. And the people who support the unredressed injustice are too crooked to even run political candidates who are open and honest about what they support.



There is no independent institution to investigate police.



The judicial branch does not have the power to manufacture evidence, prosecute, or punish police who victimize the innocent.





Here is a cop staging a bullet call the FBI seminolescam.com/bullet Check back in 100 days and we will see if they investigated that cop staging the bullet.

Republican prosecutors and sheriffs say jailhouse confession witnesses are an important tool to get convictions when they have no other evidence, and they have already told the papers the defendant is guilty. But it is just a complete scam that is as old as the hills, which the authors of the Bill of Right understood well. The Founders just didn't realize what would happen when you prohibited coercing confessions, because it had never been tried before. When you are not allowed to coerce confessions, it is still cheaper to coerce other inmates to lie, than to actually solve hard cases.



I have watched it in person, clown. Sickest thing I have ever seen. All witnesses can lie or be wrong. But in the case of jailhouse confession so-called witnesses, it is a complete scam setup, and all the lawyers know it, and the prosecutor knows the witness is lying, and they knowingly put the witness up there to lie and victimize the innocent.



I appreciate that you have no idea. It is a really sick thing, that is hard to believe. Even all the law school professors who write about it, don't fully appreciate it. Because they have probably not watched it in person, or had personal knowledge of the details the witnesses lied about.

The only thing most academics know is that dozens of murder convictions which were overturned when DNA was invented were based on jailhouse witnesses. But once you watch it with your own eyes and understand it, it is clearly always lies, and it takes over the trial in a way most academics don't fully grasp. And of course you are just a parrot who knows nothing.



I am to the right of you and anyone else on here. It is a joke to hear people talk about liberty and the Constitution, who don't support the Bill of Rights, and don't realize the Bill of Rights is a historic anti-police screed, based on long historical experience with police and human nature. You people are no different from the British or 1,000 dead civilizations before them.



It is the nature of the political establishment and the mob, to overlook lies used to predetermine the outcome of mock trials, to lock up whomever the majority thinks is undesirable, for the greater good. Democrat cities think police are undesirables. Feds think Republicans are undesirables. Republican counties think anyone with a past drug arrest is fair game to frame for life in prison.



When you lock up innocent people, or give people life because their friends lied about who owned the drugs, their families and sympathizers vote Democrat for 50 years. Republicans are too stupid to realize that if you lock up enough people, and especially enough innocent people, their families and sympathizers reach a critical mass after a few decades, to tip elections in places like Georgia and Florida. I notice not too many Republicans have been rewarded for Giuliani increasing policing in New York. Instead of Lazio and D'Amato, we got Clinton and Cortez. That is what de Tocqueville called "Democracy in America". The families of those in prison, realize they can vote to let everyone out. Rather than try to improve the justice system to separate better between guilty and innocent, Republicans just want to lock up more people including more innocents. And Democrats just want to release more people including the guilty.



Yes, in the Stela of Hammurabi. But 4,000 years later we have slouched to where it is standard practice for prosecutors to coerce and supervise perjury for local political reward. Here are some plain examples of a prosecutor supervising perjury without consequence:

seminolescam.com/fleeing
seminolescam.com/witnesses



They don't actually confess at the jailhouse. It is a scam, designed to play magoo idiots like you for suckers. Or I don't know, maybe you are doing the playing.

The interesting thing is, it doesn't matter if the confession the coerced inmate claims, is impossible based on all the other evidence. It is the only witness who tells a complete story in a single breath, instead of bits and pieces. It is the most colorful con artist selected from the inmate population, the only part of the trial half the jurors even wake up for. A dozen other rules of evidence, make nonsense confessions that contradict all the evidence, work better than all the other evidence. That is why prosecutors use jailhouse confession so-called witnesses even though they know they are lying, and even when their stories make no sense.

Do you think the people who wrote the Constitution liked criminals, and wanted to create a nation where criminals got away with it? Remember, one of their grievances in the Declaration of Independence was that murderers were getting away with it. Remember Thomas Jefferson wanted to drill a hole through a girl's nose for sodomy. And yet they wanted to make sure no criminal would ever be compelled to be a witness against himself. Why, if they wanted to convict criminals, did they want to deprive themselves of the best and most popular tool to do it?

I understand Republicans are parrots, who have not researched law enforcement across nations and throughout history. But those who founded our country had. And they knew that jailhouse confessions are not a valuable tool to convict criminals. They are the first resort of lazy hucksters, used to put over a fraud on the public without ever having to walk five feet to solve a crime. The founders knew jailhouse confessions are a scam.



I would like an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to compel reporting of all events in the justice system in a standardized way, and punish reporting failures like the SEC. Then we could have stats to do real research and honest debate, and improve the product. But the local political establishments don't want to cede power to the state level where the voters are judging them (and often punishing the party for what happens in safe districts). Because that would be like taking the samurai away from the daimyos. They would no longer be able to cheat to lock up and release whomever they want to lock up and release.



You are wrong. Absolutely many people do love and support lying in court. Across all races and demographics in history, there is a demand to remove the people you don't like from the community. In the USA you would never get a law passed to just remove unpopular citizens. But if a cop can get around that by just lying in court, or a prosecutor can coerce a drug felon to lie in court to give an unpopular person life in prison, then he is the hero.

Consider a hypothetical of a shooting at a party, where the person who owns the gun has an incentive to take a 20-year deal and and lie say another person did it. And that other person has an incentive to defend his innocence, and gets life. One woman said that is great, we can force all these awful people to lie about each other, and give all of them life. She said if their scumbag families don't like them all getting life just for being at the party, it is their fault for hanging out with scumbags. She scolded me, suggesting that if I had my way the real killer might get away since nobody can prove which one really did it. It is better to give everyone there life, to guarantee the real killer gets justice.

Of course she is myopic, she doesn't realize this is incompatible with democracy. She has just manufactured whole families and groups of nihilists who hold a permanent grudge against the state, their government, and the general public, for unredressed injustice, locking up innocent people that are dear to them. Their families and sympathizers will vote to destroy everything until the end of time. Because they are right, their neighbors are their enemy.

I told a man my friend is serving life without parole from age 21, for a crime that didn't happen because a cop lied. He said wait, you left out the very important detail that that your friend was previously arrested with 7 pounds of GHB. I said she never had 7 pounds of GHB, the crime lab said the police were wrong about the suspicious substance, and all charges were dropped.

He said he doesn't believe me, he believes 100 newspaper articles that say she did have 7 pounds of GHB, and she is an evil rapist. And because she is an evil date rapist, then it makes perfect sense to frame her for life in a murder case. And the cop who framed her did a good thing, and everyone agrees. No one would punish a cop for lying, to give a young girl life in prison for a crime that didn't happen, because multiple newspapers whipped up the public with embellished news stories for clicks.

I have plain proof the cop lied and faked evidence, and they awarded him LEO of the Year for the case. You think they will ever admit they were wrong? They will eagerly take 70 years of someone's life for a crime that didn't happen, and be celebrated for it, before admitting to lying.

Don't be naive, you are surrounded by humans. They would relish locking up you or your family member just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, because the papers pile on and sensationalize it for clicks. They would reward the liars, and punish those who set you free, at the ballot box.



Short of that, I am sure you totally support police lying and faking any evidence they can, and coercing witnesses to lie, to get these people off the street for the greater good. Even when they are innocent of a particular crime. And then to protect your racket, you want to make sure no statistics of what you are doing are even written down. And then slimeballs, and magoo idiots like the ones who write on this website, come along and say "According to my research, there are no statistics to back up these allegations of police perjury and misconduct."

Meanwhile Republicans pray for crime all day, thinking they need an antiquated law-and-order strategy to beat a corpse.



Seminole County is led by some of the dumbest white trash ever to drop out of the human intellectual competition.

Used-car salesmen like Seminole County State Attorney Phil Archer say if police and prosecutors are held accountable for victimizing the innocent, we will go back to the 1970's and put your family at the mercy of rapists and carjackers. But crime in the 1970's was not a result of prosecuting police and prosecutors. It was a result of failure to prosecute all criminals, and letting criminals out of prison based on a "rehabilitation" philosophy.

This present-day cult where police and prosecutors are immune from justice, is actually a lot like the rehabilitation fad of the 1960's, where criminals who prey on innocents for sport were assumed to be decent people who should be given the benefit of the doubt.

I want police and prosecutors prosecuted when they victimize the innocent, do you? That would be law and order and justice. My bet is you want none of that, you hippie. You look at a sick Dennis Rader predator like State Attorney Phil Archer, and you say he is a decent guy doing his best, cut him a break. I want State Attorney Phil Archer to get the death penalty.

You say come on, it is not the fault of police that there are these crazy people who need to be locked up. We need to look at the "root causes" of why police break the law. It is tough out there on the streets, police have to lie and cheat to level the playing field!

Maybe if people stopped breaking the law and acting like thugs, police wouldn't need to plant weed on them and coerce them to lie about each other in court. Maybe if there weren't so many problem communities and problem people in them, police wouldn't have to do the things they do!

I don't care what the root causes are, or why police and prosecutors lie and fake evidence and victimize the innocent. I just want them off the street when they do, lock them up and throw away the key. I don't need to hear all kinds of excuses for what happened.

The police are like horror-movie monsters, because when they frame you, nobody will believe you. So the moment they enter your house your life is at risk, as if you had been dropped in the polar bear cage at the zoo.



I take an economist's view, that all people will do bad if there is an incentive and no deterrent. And I see an incentive for police and prosecutors to frame anyone who is an undesirable according to the local mob, and to frame anyone they can convince the paper to say that person is evil for clicks. And no deterrent.

Man is evil when unrestrained. In the United States, man has been successful at subverting the Bill of Rights, to be evil, like man traditionally has been throughout history. The real surprise, is that it took as many years as it did. The main difference at this exact moment in the USA, is it is concealed and obfuscated.

For example, did you know when they have no evidence against a suspect, it it is common practice to just pay a felon to lie and say anyone they want to confessed? And the rules of evidence favor this scam over all other evidence. Did you know that the way the criminal courts work there is no penalty or deterrent to lying under oath? But most actual evidence of what happened in any crime, is suppressed by case law. Add to that the jurors are an idiot mob for whom no court can afford to enforce the rules. The hit rate on true guilt or innocence is unknowably bad.

In a few more years, people will come to the popular understanding of how perverted the justice system has become. And they will make a conscious choice whether to make it official, or to return to some of the geeky ideals of our founding.

Hayek had a chapter in "The Road to Serfdom" titled "Why the Worst Get On Top." That is an example of a system that selects evildoers as its employees. Right now you have to be willing to do evil, to wield the tools of the justice system the public wants wielded. And the most evil are selected for the most success. The more times you pay felons to lie, the more evidence you fake, the more of a hero you are.



The "bad in everything" argument doesn't work. when cops refuse to write down or report examples of cops being bad. Do you support a new independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to require reports of all activity from the justice system and punish reporting failures like the SEC? No. You don't want cops to be regulated like doctors or sellers of travel or insurance brokers. Because you want to conceal how bad they are. Because you want them to be bad when it suits you, and against whatever group of people you don't like. You want your own private rules, where the local political establishment can railroad anyone they find undesirable. And outsiders should mind their own business.



All your authority comes from the state level. All the laws, all the courts, all the prisons. So you don't have any of your own business, it is not allowed to you, not legally at least. But I know you get around the law.



So cops should be allowed to create unredressed injustice with no accountability, because their job is dangerous? That is chaos and violence. You are simply saying we will improve society, by just not counting the evil that we do. So every time you do good, you get a star. And every time you do bad you get a mulligan. At the end of every day, you say we got an A+, A- if you really want to be picky. Because our failures don't get counted, we can't ever do that, writing down our failures is kryptonite. It is a sickly corrupt and dishonest system. But you will go down with the ship, rather than improve the product.



I know, any actual arguments or discussions of police and the justice system are taboo. We just have to say these pasty idiots are heroes, and anyone who says otherwise is stupid and obtuse. And above all, always insulate ourselves from any facts or research, by making sure each police department is its own cocoon of secrets and ignored misconduct, which is never recorded at the state level. And we can all pretend the misconduct doesn't exist.

I figured out a few weeks back, cops are so dumb a lot of them actually think they are the only crooked ones getting away with it. They don't realize there is a crew of identical crooked idiots the next town over, doing the same crooked things and also getting away with it.



That's a start. Sometimes they call the Securities Act of 1933 "the paper act" and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 "the people act." The 1934 act created the SEC, to enforce the 1933 act. So there needs to be a Police and Prosecution Commission, to investigate and penalize people who fail to write down and report the data required in the database. I promise you, if I call the FBI and say "my local cop didn't get reported to the database" I will never get a callback or investigation.



At least you know what the SEC did or didn't do, so you can argue about it and vote on it. Do you support a new institution to record and publish everything local police do? Or do you just want to defund them because you don't trust government?



When a police officer is killed doing his job, other cops don't intentionally lose evidence. When a police officer kills someone, there is no designated cop to take the case. Is it the job of the victim's family to look into it? Or the mob? Is it the local prosecutor? State level law enforcement? The DOJ? If a cop kills someone, in most cases every one of those institutions will ignore it. When a cop is killed, the police never ignore it, all those institutions jump in it without having to wait for the other.



It was a very rare case where a black guy died on video, so the mob took an interest. And only after those two things did anyone else take an interest. So the mob is a necessary and designed part of the process. No mob, no video, no black skin, no Democrat local political establishment, no investigation.

That is the system you prefer, where 99% of instances of real misconduct are overlooked, and fake misconduct is blown up into national election issues. You don't want an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to deal with police misconduct in a sane an orderly way. You want a few cops viciously sacrificed here and there, for all the bad things that go unpunished.



So you admit you can frame anyone with a past drug arrest. There is nothing to stop it, no institution to stop it. And in fact you will be celebrated. And once you can frame anyone with a past drug arrest, then you can threaten that drug felon with life in prison, to get that drug felon to swear to any testimony you want. And then with nothing institutional to stop it, you can use that coerced testimony of drug felons (who would not even be allowed to vote or own a gun) to frame anyone. And once the newspaper prints your allegations - since they can't afford reporters any more and just copy-paste the local police blotter or sports figures - once the newspaper copy-pastes your allegations (without being able to afford any investigation), the public will make you a hero for framing that completely innocent person.

The case of my friend is interesting: There are 100 newspapers articles in Google, including USA Today, that say she was arrested with 7 pounds of GHB. In fact she never possessed GHB. The crime lab said the police were wrong about the unknown substance, and all the charges were dropped. But because Google contains the false story that she was previously arrested with 7 pounds of GHB, they made the cop who lied and faked evidence to take her life without parole from age 21 "LEO of the Year."

I am glad when Republicans are honest this is how the justice system works. It is nice to discuss things with honest, rational people, who honestly think people with past drug arrests should be framed for the public good. Maybe we could even pass an honest law, that anyone in the vicinity of a crime with a past drug arrest gets 15 years. And anyone with a past drug arrest loses the right to a jury trial. So police don't have to do the dirty work, and nobody has to lie or let felons out of prison as a reward for lying. These are honest rational proposals, about reality. Whereas Democrats are on another planet talking about nonsense all day, saying it has to do with inter-generational trauma and global warming.



LOL the FDLE told me it is the job of private attorneys to prosecute police. I won't even waste my time challenging you to give me the name of the police regulator in Florida. There is none. I heard of the FREC, not the PPC. There is no number you can call and get any answer in most places. The SEC on the other hand, nobody even needs to call.



Judges, lawyers, accreditations, case law don't actually put police in prison when they victimize the innocent. Local oversight is "you did a great job framing that druggie, too bad the lawyers caught you this time, next time make sure to collect less actual evidence." FBI oversight is "please leave a message at the tone."

I don't own a TV. On TV, crime scene investigators actually care what happened, not just finding and ignoring evidence to fit the police narrative.



The guy who wrote this article wants to defund the police! These people whine over and over it will cost too much to hire police, being a cop will be unattractive, they will quit, nobody will apply... SO PAY POLICE MORE, CLOWN! Once you have paid police more, and you are attracting better applicants doing a better job delivering the product you want, the number of things we have to debate about will be greatly reduced.

Then we can argue about whether it is all a free lunch to lock up more people. The more people you lock up, the more people's families vote to let everyone out. You are going to give a guy life because someone else paid him to help commit suicide with heroin? When you would have probably taken the first chance to put the heroin user himself in prison? And then all his family and sympathizers will vote Democrat for 50 years, and you have to argue and fundraise and campaign against them, because some hedonist jerk killed himself? Republicans act like it is a free lunch to give people life for drug crimes, and then whine all day that they have to run against people voting for socialism in the other party.

You never even consider that your mandate to lock up more people is filled the way demand for every product is filled, in the cheapest way possible. Republicans make no efforts to improve the accuracy rate on guilt or innocence. Then they complain that death-penalty cases cost so much. When they are the ones who demanded a criminal justice system built on the coerced lies of felons, to lock up as many people as possible, including innocents and incompetents. And then they get millions more people pushing back, with crazy laws that let everyone out, guilty or innocent, as fast as Republicans reward cops and prosecutors who put everyone in, guilty or innocent.

It is a free lunch to shoot incompetent idiots who run when police say stop. It is a free lunch for cops to plant drugs on people so they can't get a job for 20 years. It is a free lunch for prosecutors to coerce felons to lie and convict the innocent. Republicans refuse to write down and report all this stuff to weigh it in an honest debate. It is all hidden in a cocoon of secrecy at the local level. Then Republicans pretend it doesn't exist, and wonder why they lose elections.

As long as cops and judges and prosecutors are captive to tyranny of the majority under the local political establishment, misconduct will be overlooked and rewarded, and the justice system will be hacked to get around the Bill of Rights and round up undesirables Chinese style. Until you fix that, until you improve the product to prevent cops from being used like in feudal Japan, Republicans will be spending all their energy losing ground to socialists in statewide and national elections. Because innocent people's rights are being trampled, and Republicans either like it, or refuse to believe reality.

The justice system is a sick flawed demented scam. Half of Republicans want it that way, the other half have no clue. And all of them refuse to consider any kind of product improvements which would make their product compatible with democracy. Republicans are losing elections over this piece of corrupt garbage the justice system, but they are chained to it like a cop worship cult while the whole country sinks because they can't stop reciting tough-on-crime slogans from 40 years ago and recognize what is happening.

Here is a prosecutor lying at trial and saying a victim was shot while fleeing, just like in Ferguson:

seminolescam.com/fleeing

Do you even care at all when you see police and prosecutors supervising perjury and faking evidence? You don't. And nobody can have a successful political party, when they support police and prosecutors in the crime of perjury. So you can write and whine all day, clean off your keyboard, because it is only going to get worse for you until you clean up the justice system in a sensible way, or socialists will do it for you their way.

It is like Sowell said in "The Vision of the Anointed": People have been making errors and committing sins as long as there have been people. The necessary ingredient for an error to become fatal, is insulation from feedback from reality. Republicans refuse to comprehend any of the flaws in the justice system, or how they manufacture millions of people voting against them in close elections. Sowell additionally mentioned how, unlike the private sector where people pay a quiet price for errors, politicians will carry on indefinitely, and drag down a whole society, without ever admitting they were wrong. Because the price of publicly admitting error and adjusting course is too high.



If you are a political party who supports cops committing perjury to give life sentences to people who have not committed the crime they are convicted of, because they are friends with people who have been arrested, your party will lose and your country will die.

Justice System Not What People Think

My friend recently went on trial for first degree murder and got life without parole from age 21. I found out that the whole process is far less perfect than what people think it is. And I found out that a lot of people have similar experiences and have a deep nihilistic feeling as a result. Because justice issues are deep in people's hearts. I always knew before that something was making people bitter and vote Democrat. But I never guessed what.

First of all, the police edited the video to tell a different story. They changed the time and order of the clips. And it is obvious that they did. And my friend's lawyer admitted to me they did. There are two witnesses in the video who nobody knows their names and nobody will give me video of one of them, who could tell you instantly when the clips they are in took place. And nobody cares. I told the FDLE, and they said it is her private lawyer's job to prosecute police misconduct.

For whatever reason, her lawyer decided to keep quiet about it. And so it is nowhere in the public record that a detective faked a crime. And there is no price for it. All it would take is for an investigator to get the names of two people in the video and ask "What time did this happen?" And then if I am wrong, okay. But nobody will do it because nobody cares. And there is nobody you can call. There should be someone you can call.

They also clearly faked the location of the bullet and all of the crime scene work was deeply flawed, and there is nobody you can call. It is obscene that crime scene work like that is being used to take people's lives. And there is no central authority to monitor and audit it, and collect statistics like they would do for stock brokers or nurses or any profession. They say it is the job of public defenders to figure it out. But on the rare occasion they do, the process does not improve, a criminal just walks.

People actually imagine that letting criminals walk is a deterrent to police breaking the law! Just the opposite! People blame the judges, and demand police break the law more when they see criminals walk. Then police rope innocent people and get praised for it, judges try to intervene, Republicans vote for mandatory minimums, and whole families of the incarcerated vote Democrat for 50 years.

I thought the problems were rare and unique in this one case with my friend. But when I talk about it in the street or online, suddenly I get all these people who like my posts more than any other thing I post about, and know exactly what I am talking about. Many of them just blindly vote Democrat as their way of dealing with it. Which is dysfunctional and misguided. But that is the standard response, and the only response. That or become a boogaloo, I guess.

Next, I was surprised that all the witnesses lie at trial (and the prosecutors and defense lawyers). And you can prove they are lying. And it doesn't matter. People always talk about perjury like there is some penalty for it. There is not. A prosecutor can suborn perjury without penalty. The only deterrent is the defense lawyer is supposed to cross-examine the witness, it is up to the defense lawyer to prosecute perjury. And if the defense lawyer doesn't, then the only deterrent to perjury is you can pay a lawyer and argue ineffective counsel three years later.

But the worst thing of all, is the rules of evidence let prosecutors run a scam where they can pay felons to go up there, and take over the trial with total nonsense. They paid this one girl from the jail to go up and say my friend confessed to things that were impossible based on physical evidence. There is no question, there is no argument, her testimony was complete nonsense. The crime she described never happened.

But it works. 1) The jury is under the false impression there is some penalty or consequence for lying. She told the jury if she got caught lying she would get life in prison. That is not true. 2) It takes a dozen witnesses over five days to prove what she is saying is impossible. It would otherwise take the prosecution a dozen witnesses over five days to tell the jury what happened. 3) The jailhouse witness is colorful and entertaining, it is the only time when half the jurors even wake up. 4) The rules of evidence won't even let you show most evidence of what actually happened.

The rules of evidence won't let you tell the jury what crime the jailhouse witness was convicted of, or anything about the jailhouse witness. So if the jailhouse witness was charged with an identical crime and knows exactly what things the prosecution will pay her to lie about, you can't tell the jury that. The rules of evidence would not let the defense show the jury things that proved the jailhouse witnesses story was not true. Like there were some drugs that were not taken, and some other things. People, including jurors,don't know the rules of evidence are stopping you from showing them and telling them things they assume you would tell them. The rules of evidence give special favor to jailhouse witnesses over every other type of evidence.

Any witness or evidence that might *confuse* the jury is blocked. Hearsay is blocked. But the jailhouse witness can go up and tell a crazy story that contradicts every piece of physical evidence!

And so prosecutors go to the well with this scam over and over. And everybody knows it is a scam. And nobody does anything about it. When you talk about false convictions, there are two types, 1) freak events (and public defenders), and 2) jailhouse witnesses. Republicans assume all false convictions are freak events. Democrats assume all false convictions are racism or can't afford a lawyer. But most false convictions for serious crimes are felons paid to lie. And all criminal lawyers know it, and nobody does anything about it. And if you are able to prove what happened, with DNA or anything else, there is zero penalty or deterrent to the prosecutor or the liar.

You also hear from Democrats how it is a problem that most cases are settled with plea bargains. The reason that is true, is because juries are random. They will convict at least 5% of people even if the prosecution just sings happy birthday. Certain factors having nothing to do with guilt will take that up to 15%. But that is a hard problem with no good solution, that judges and legislators have already attacked for years.

Democrats assume things like false convictions happen because people are evil racists. But Republicans know it is the process that gives people the incentives. If there is a deterrent, or a feedback mechanism, people won't do it. If police and lawyers were investigated by someone other than their peers, their behavior would improve 1000% overnight, it is low-hanging fruit, almost a free lunch. Democrats think they need judges who will let people out of prison after they are convicted by racists. But you really just need to create any deterrent to the jailhouse witness scam, and it will fix 90% of the problem.

It is extremely easy to do something that will make a big difference, except prosecutors will squeal like pigs, because you are taking away their instant-conviction button that also works on the innocent. And so Democrats can't fix it because the prosecutors cry to Republicans that their families will be murdered if you take away their scam and let criminals go free. So the problem never gets fixed, and it is like a splinter driving people to vote Democrat decade after decade.


Opposition to Death Penalty

I saw that you are for justice and deterrent in the form of the death penalty, which is a natural part of the human experience. 90% of opposition to the death penalty comes from these sob-story cases where a jailhouse witness lied, and DNA came along 30 years later and proved the guy was innocent.

I will just say "all" and say all opposition to the death penalty comes from these jailhouse witness cases which serve as proof over and over that people are falsely convicted of murder. Get rid of the jailhouse witnesses, and anecdotes of false convictions will largely dry up. Especially tear-jerking anecdotes of the young, dumb, and vulnerable who every criminal and drug dealer will see as easy meat to take advantage of to get a sentence reduction.


Cost of Regulation

You would say we can't have a complaint line for police, because police lock people up, everyone would complain, it would be swamped. More than half of people who trade stocks and futures lose money, and they have a complaint line for that. And people with no complaint line go to the voting booth and vote Democrat, which costs even more. So yes, having a public employee whose job is to lock people in boxes for the rest of their life is expensive. Just like universal healthcare. But I don't see Republicans trying to moderate ambitious law-enforcement initiatives like they accept tragedy and try to moderate promises for universal healthcare.

Death penalty cases would not need decades of expensive litigation if you deterred prosecutors from using the jailhouse-witness scam on day one. You are asking for garbage and then complaining about the cost. Prosecutors are selling you a scam, a flawed product, and claiming they are saving your family from rapists and carjackers.


Term Limits for Judges

First thing, jailhouse-confession witnesses are a complete scam. And there is no grey area, or pros and cons or anything like that. If you have not watched a trial or looked at all the evidence in a trial that used jailhouse-confession witnesses, I recommend not trusting the opinion of biased parties.

I would prefer an independent institution in the executive branch like the SEC. Because police are already to some extent given oversight by the local citizens in their counties. And it is haphazard. In a liberal county, they will catch hell all day for catching criminals, and voters will try to go around them with new laws in statewide elections. In some counties, the local citizens will be branded racists, letting their local police get anyway with anything. In those counties Republicans will lose votes in statewide and national elections.

So I don't know if you mean local citizens doing the oversight. But if so, it will just be a form of tyranny of the majority. People will not police the police whom their own children go to school and church with. And the pressure valve for local citizens caught on the wrong side of it, is voting Democrat in statewide and national elections.

I am not familiar with the arguments in favor of term limits for judges. Probably you want to make judges more responsive to the local majority again. Which may only be a mob. Police lie to the local paper that someone is guilty, a judge tries to stop that person from being framed, and suddenly a mob of people who have not even seen the evidence think the judge is public enemy #1, a radical leftist. And again, the minority then runs to Democrats in statewide and national elections, peeling off 5% of natural Republicans among conservative blacks, libertarians, whatever.

I already think there is an under-supply of judges who can apply the law fairly and evenly in rural counties. They rotate the judges through a circuit. As an anecdote, I recently saw a judge in a semi-rural county rotate over from the civil division. Among her many errors, she tried to sentence a first-degree murder conviction to 30 years. And she misinterpreted the Constitution, in her belief that the defense had to make their witnesses available to the prosecution the same as in a civil trial.


Right-Wing Police Reform

I am a rural Southern far-right radical. I think Rush Limbaugh is a hippie, and Mark Levin lives in New York! I absolutely support improving the police product. It is currently a steady generator of allegations of racism and votes for Democrats. Making universal healthcare affordable by shielding doctors from malpractice liability would be politically unviable. Making ambitious, universal, tough-on-crime justice affordable the same way, creates votes for Democrats. If Republicans want tough policing, spend more money like you do on your health insurance. Then policemen won't quit.

My friend is serving two life sentences from age 21 for a crime that didn't even happen. They don't teach you in high school civics class, that not only police, but also prosecutors, face ZERO PENALTY for knowingly taking an innocent person's life.

I also wonder if there needs to be some different law for technical murder. That is when someone uses every technicality available to him, to take someone's life when he doesn't need to. I think that would be more appropriate than first degree murder, or first degree felony murder, in some cases. The Arbery case might turn on an argument of whether they were technically legally allowed to shoot him. But even if they were, they really did not need to shoot him and should not have been so casual to take someone's life. If a mentally ill person is screaming at you in your front yard, the law may say you can shoot him dead. I think that would be more like a manslaughter penalty, 15 years, if you were legally allowed to but did you really need to?


Truth and Justice

Republicans know police racism is a lie. So why do they think the current political movement is about race?

It is white people singing a song written by black people. And it is not even about Trump.

White people are for truth and justice.

1) police and prosecutors have immunity from justice

2) most major criminal cases are built on the lies of felons

3) Republicans refuse to even write down those numbers so we could have an honest debate

Even the NHS reports statistics! Burn it down!

There needs to be a new independent institution in the executive branch, like the SEC, to restore the reputation of the justice system.


Black Issues

Black issues are like virus facemasks. Everybody knows about them. The current political movement is white people using black people, even getting them shot, in search of delicious revenge against the police.

From what I have seen, wrongful convictions are probably far more common than anybody knows. Because Republicans and their constituents, and government employees, refuse to even write down instances of police misconduct, tabulate how often police lie on the stand, or require any kind of central reporting that would enable us to have an honest debate about the science of justice.

The news media, not the police, are emphasized in the First Amendment. The plurality of the Bill of Rights is designed to fight police. Unless you are demanding an independent SEC-like institution in the executive branch to investigate wrongful convictions, don't bother making up stories about how common they are or aren't. How common they are is totally and intentionally obscured, and then you are shameless to criticize people who are forced to guess. Let's get some science, let's get an independent body to investigate. Let's publish statistics of every time a policeman is accused of perjury, every time a felon testifies.

I thought my experiences with police and prosecutors were unique. But every time I open my mouth on the street, I am surprised at all the strangers who have the same experience. And now buildings are burning. And Republicans say police aren't actually racist, so why is this happening?


Incentives, Deterrents, and Mock Trials

The point of the article is that police are not all evil, they have hearts like everyone else, maybe even bigger than average. It's a sad situation that has been created, where police are given immunity to the extent they have "good faith," so the citizens are forced to attack good faith to prevent police lying and get a fair trial.

In the conservative philosophy of Edmund Burke and Thomas Sowell, the the size of your heart is irrelevant, and the attribution of events in society to good and evil people is the popular road to death and misery. Nobody will ever be kinder and more caring than a liberal communist. They have a currency of indulgences.

Conservatives believe that behavior is dictated by the incentives and deterrents built into systems. Like Adam Smith said, the baker bakes bread for me not because he is generous, but because he is greedy. That is the "free market" system promoted by Republicans.

I hold the tragic, fallen view of the nature of man, where man will do evil, any time he has any prospect to gain anything by it. Again, that is a right-wing view of the world like Ronald Reagan, "peace through deterrence."

I see that police pay no price whatsoever for faking evidence, lying on the stand, and hiding witnesses, and a prosecutor gets no penalty for lying, and supervising perjury, in a murder case. So it is not one prosecutor, or one case. It is a system which incentivizes, and does not deter, evil behavior.

You think it is okay for police and prosecutors to lie, or to coerce felons to lie, if it convicts the guilty. So police and prosecutors decide who is guilty, before it gets to a jury. And they get away with it, it is overlooked, to the extent they are able to persuade the public the defendant is guilty, through the news media. And because fluff pieces have proven the police have good intentions, and the defendant is portrayed as an undesirable. That is a mock trial.

It takes great vigilance to resist the evil nature of man, and to continue to be one of the places in history with fair trials, not mock trials. The United States is slipping into the popular mediocrity of history with mock trials. Our criminal justice system is built on police whose crimes it is taboo to even write down a record of, and felons who are rewarded for lying with freedom! I want to "make America great again."


Appropriation of Grievances

What are Republicans doing wrong, that we are always 1% of the electorate away from losing the country to socialist nihilists? Does it have to be that way? Is the human mind so strongly programmed for socialism like heroin, that it can't be defeated? Or is there something Republicans are missing, that could help increase the brand performance of the better product?

I think there is. Republicans need to recognize that you cannot win elections in a democracy when you support perjury by police. If you refuse to change a system where police pay no penalty for lying on the stand, then you support perjury by police, you support mock trials, and you are trying to compete with the stone of injustice chained to your leg. Without even knowing it. That is the trick. Most Republicans are geeks who have no idea what is going on.

Or even worse, they suffer from "hands up don't shoot" derangement syndrome.

Sowell is associated with the phrase "voice in the wilderness." Nobody has read his books more times than I have. If you try to explain to Republicans why white people are aggrieved, and are appropriating and exaggerating the grievances of black people for their own use, you are a voice in the wilderness.


Conversations with Law Enforcement

It gives me the heebeejeebees to see normal people sit down and talk with law enforcement, when you have no idea the lying world they live in or what years in it have done to them. I am reminded of Jesus at the Passover festival. "Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person."

I can offer you a great anecdote about what happens when normal people sit down with lying law enforcement.

Jury Instruction Scam

The Florida Supreme Court's Innocence Commission was trying to mitigate false convictions resulting from the jailhouse witness scam. Law enforcement took over the process, and it ended with a lying solution that was worse than nothing: It reminded the jury to consider the lying jailhouse witnesses.

Law enforcement wants to lie. Like many people would like to lie, if you let them get away with it. So it is only a question of whether you support law enforcement lying because you think it benefits you, or you want to reduce it by making sure there is any penalty for police lying.


Unfair Burden on the Police

Yonkers police started a policy of not going into New York City, out of fear that the unpopularity of police would lead the local political establishment to overlook perjury used against police to lock them up for crimes that didn't even happen. In a related story, false accusations made by felons against an unpopular person on a street in Ferguson, Missouri, were picked up by the media and broadcast as the truth.

I am curious if you have any statistics on what percentage of convictions in major criminal cases are based on the coerced testimony of drug felons and people with active cases, whether they be codefendants, witnesses, or jailhouse so-called witnesses. And I am curious if you have any stats on how many times local police have been accused of perjury. If you don't have these statistics, would you support the creation of an independent institution in the executive branch to collect these statistics, and prosecute reporting failures like the SEC, to build this database which could help your research?

Also, I am curious if you think the deterrence of perjury should be moved away from local politics, essentially the mob, where the institutions designed to deter perjury, whether they be defense attorneys and The Bar, judges, or internal affairs personnel, are captive to the mood of the mob as whipped up in the local paper, and don't have the tools to deter perjury through prosecution anyway. The way it currently stands, investigations of local police and prosecutors are initiated by criminals, prosecuted by the mob, and tried at the ballot box at the national level, in a most haphazard way. Real misconduct is overlooked, and fake misconduct becomes national issues. Would you support an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to initiate investigations proactively, and prosecute police and prosecutors in a much more fair, rational, and accurate way, that would spare innocents from taking their grievances to the ballot box with initiatives that damage the justice system and punish all cops unfairly?

Also, there is great demand to lock up innocents in a democracy, to get undesirables and drug users off the streets for the public good. But while the public sees jury trials as an obstacle to this public good, they are unwilling to make the legal changes necessary to serve the public good in an honest and fair way. When mandatory minimums and three strikes laws and jailhouse witnesses are insufficient to remove all undesirables, they look to police to do the dirty work. Because the public are not honest about what they demand, they push the burden onto police to lie and fake evidence and coerce witnesses, to predetermine a popular outcome of jury trials.

And while discretion is used to overlook this illegal behavior by police and prosecutors at the local level, as much as with sodomy and marijuana, it puts an undue burden on police to break the law and do unpopular things, and to sneak around in the shadows, to achieve a popular policy outcome. Would you support a Constitutional amendment to allow tribunals of elected judges, or ballot measures with the names of the accused, instead of jury trials in certain cases, in order to relieve police of the burden to engage in misconduct, even though they may be largely shielded from actual legal consequences by their peers and the local political establishment?

Would you support new "undesirables" laws similar to felony murder, but which are much more sweeping, such as locking up anyone with a prior drug arrest who is in the vicinity of a crime for 15 years? These measures would remove an unfair burden from police, who are currently forced to drive around all day in a fruitless search for evidence they can use to meet the public demand to lock up undesirables who are innocent of a particular crime. And it would remove the burden from sheriffs who are currently tasked with providing case information to other inmates, and coercing jailhouse witnesses - even letting dangerous felons out of prison - to swear other inmates confessed to what they are accused of.

Do you agree the voter should pass laws to get what they want, rather than putting the burden on police to hack the system to achieve something it is not designed for, using lies to accuse the innocent to satisfy the local mob? Do you agree pro-police and tough-on-crime candidates should run on a platform supporting these changes, rather than exposing their police to all kinds of violence and legal retribution to get the desired results the way it is currently done?

Do you agree police should be paid more, like doctors, and given liability insurance, and regulated at the state level, and held liable for civil and criminal misconduct which currently creates unredressed injustice and drives voters into the arms of socialists?


Fossil Republicans

It is not rational to ignore grievances, just because less than half of people have family members who suffered unredressed injustice at the hands of local police and prosecutors. The relevant number is: What number of people from likely Republican demographics have family members who suffered undredressed injustice at the hands of police? And compare that number, to the few thousand votes Republicans are winning (or losing) by at the state level.

Tyranny of the majority works great in safe districts. But if you are not actually a majority, you need to appeal to some of those aggrieved voters, by addressing their grievances. And I know, Republicans will say what grievances, police are not actually racist. Yes, most of the protesters are actually white people, many of them carrying guns. Do they really all like socialism? Or do they more likely just have a grudge against the police?

In an election that could have been about socialism, I don't know why Republicans have decided to add a new issue and run on cop worship. It is old Republicans, running on an old playbook from 30 years ago.

It almost makes you wonder if BLM added the marxist stuff, and Democrats added the racism stuff, to make sure they could poison the pill to where Republicans could not swallow it. And this guaranteed only Democrats could ever offer any kind of appeal to people aggrieved by fixable problems in the justice system. And it enabled Democrats to own the issue, and forced Republicans to run against it.

And these fossils, reciting stump speeches that were originally recorded on Betamax, are just fishing in the old pond again.

Newt Gingrich is a fossil reciting talking points from 30 years ago. He is right that people feel strongly about criminal justice. What he is missing is there is a popular perception that police are victimizing the innocent without consequence, and that there is unredressed injustice at the hands of government employees.

This concept has been a consistent driver of political events throughout American history. People want law and justice and they see police and prosecutors as immune criminals, just like under the King of England.

There is no money or heroin inside that courthouse. But Republicans' minds are so confused by "hands up don't shoot" they cannot see reality. Never mind that most major criminal convictions are built on the coerced testimony of felons who are much more desperate to lie than anyone on that street in Ferguson. Republicans love lies being used in the justice system, just not against the overclass.

Republicans have very simple minds like peasants who love the king. Nobody is advocating that murderers be rehabilitated and let out of prison like Democrats advocated for 50 years ago. Quite the opposite, people are advocating that police and prosecutors who victimize the innocent, be brought to justice. Even if they were faithfully executing the king's instructions. Kind of like those who wrote the Declaration of Independence didn't like the king's soldiers getting away with murder.



The Bill of Rights is clearly an anti-police document. And Republicans are unashamedly in favor of using police like an overclass of samurais to whom no laws apply, to protect the local fief. Such as Greenwood Village, Colorado. Or Yonkers, New York. Or Brevard County, Florida.


Paging Dr. Thomas Sowell

Sowell agrees with Hayek's concept that cultural memes and institutions have evolved to constrain and complement human nature, which is inappropriately designed for a tribal environment with a single vantage point.

What do you think Sowell would say is the institution in our civilization, to deter local police misconduct? Obviously police won't be investigated by their peers. And obviously a tyranny of the local majority will reward police who bypass the Bill of Rights by predetermining the outcome of what are mock trials, to lock up whomever is considered undesirable by the local majority. As is the demand and tradition throughout human history.

The current check or balance on the process, is statewide and national elections, where the sum of local minorities can form a critical mass to influence policy. Do you think Sowell would consider national elections an appropriate locus of knowledge and decision making to deter and punish individual police for local examples of misconduct?

Do you think Sowell would consider the public defender an adequate knowledge process to determine when police faked evidence, or when jailhouse so-called witnesses are coerced to lie? Do you think Sowell would consider judges who set criminals free, a system with adequate deterrents to police and prosecutors lying and supervising perjury, and coercing felons to lie and letting felons out of prison as a reward for lying?

Suppose I had undeniable proof of police and prosecutors faking evidence to give a person life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen. In the beginning of Knowledge and Decisions, Sowell wrote of an advance warning of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but no institution to collect and verify and act upon that information. What is the institution that I could bring my information to?

And keep in mind, it is needed to prevent an equal disaster when, as de Tocqueville might have imagined (and as Sowell suggests in his arguments for capital punishment), a critical mass of people realize they can vote their family members out of prison.


Checks and Balances

You know where there are no checks and balances, and there is tyranny of the majority? In the one government institution that touches the most people most often, with the most serious consequences: Policing. Suppose the Mayor of your town, or the 51% majority who elects the Sheriff, decides to ignore or suppress reports of police misconduct, and make sure there is no penalty whatsoever for police who commit perjury and fake evidence. The police can lock up whomever the local majority wants locked up, on fake charges, simply for being an undesirable. And they will win votes for locking up the innocent.

And there is no independent institution in the executive branch at the state level to compel reporting with punishment for reporting failures like the SEC, and proactively initiate investigations into police and prosecutor misconduct. All investigations into government employees in criminal justice, all regulation, is supposed to be done by criminals and judges, who hold no real deterrent. And these only regulators, by design, have been declared illegitimate. And nobody wants to take on local governments, on behalf of people whom the paper have labeled criminals, with zero liability for libel.

So there is literally no check or balance on local police absolute power. The only check is the sum of local minorities voting for the opposing party, in statewide and national elections. But when the opposing party wins, they don't address individual instances of misconduct, they let everyone out of prison. Because the families of the guilty have just as many votes as the families of those wrongly convicted based on police perjury. So there needs to be an independent SEC-like institution in the executive branch at the state level, to prosecute and deter police and prosecutors, by punishing them when they victimize the innocent.


Dear Spectator

I hit my "limit of free articles" before ever getting to read one Spectator article. But "America has an under-incarceration problem" really sounds like an inside joke making fun of people like Ann Coulter. Or maybe it is your last pandering gasp to sell a banner click.

Did you know that 100% of people who commit murder, either were or weren't ever arrested before? So if you locked up everyone who ever was or wasn't arrested, you could end murder! It is too bad that the only political alternative to Marxists, is people who would nominate candidates with a platform of locking up 100% of people (except themselves) if they could. Like all authoritarians, they would be surprised when the golem delivers something other than what they imagined, and eats its creators.

You might never have read any history. But the Founders of the USA didn't sail across the ocean to escape crime or to worship cops. On the contrary, they wrote a historic anti-cop screed, the Bill of Rights. Because this idea of locking up everyone you don't like, to achieve utopia, is as corrupt in real life, and ridiculous, as the communist utopia or any other blather pushed on a bored bourgeoisie.

If we could lock up everyone, whom would we lock up? Of course not murderers, but simply anyone who votes for the other party. You say we are locking up so many people and yet there is still murder. Could it be that if you locked up more people there would be even more murder? Could it be we are already locking up millions of people, but for some reason we will continue missing murderers no matter how many we lock up? What if your math or other simple assumptions are wrong? Has anyone with an armed big government plan ever been wrong, have actual government results ever been something that didn't fulfill the promises of the designers?

What's your next great idea, utopia through the expansion of the Post Office or DMV?

I am pretty sure Fidel Castro did lock up or deport almost every undesirable. Which of course you could never come close to doing in a democracy. Because, as de Tocqueville might have pointed out, voters would realize they could vote ALL their family members out of prison. But it is strange that in the countries with no Bill of Rights, and where police have absolute power (and where democracy doesn't limit incarceration), there is still crime, in fact more murder and less justice.

But good luck selling the utopia to some bored housewives!


Dear Representative Spanberger

I disagree that "defund the police" cost your party in the 2020 election. The reason why police are hated, why reforming them caused you trouble in your local election, and why hatred of the police defeated Donald Trump, are all the same reason: gerrymandering, tyranny of the local majority.

Police are loved by the local political establishment in every district, and hated by the minority. Because police are regulated by the local majority. The Mayor, or the 51% who elect the Sheriff, can overlook and even reward police perjury, to predetermine the outcome of trials, and lock up any member of the minority they want. And the local majority can reward discretion, to protect members of the local majority - the mayor's son, the corrupt donor - from prosecution.

So the local minority will always try to get relief from tyranny of the local majority, by voting for the other party in statewide and national elections. And the sum of local minorities makes a difference at the statewide and national level.

Suppose a state has 50 popular people, and 50 undesirables. Suppose there are 5 districts each with 20 people. One district has 20 undesirables. The other 4 districts each have 7 or 8.

The popular party will be so safe in their 4 districts, they will be corrupt and torture not only undesirables, but members of their own community. So the undesirables, and one or two marginalized popular people, will vote for the undesirable party at the statewide level, in each popular district.

That is 9 votes for the undesirable party, and 11 votes for the popular party, in all four popular districts. That is 36 votes, plus all 20 in the undesirable district, equals 56 votes at the statewide level. The undesirables are crushed in 80% of districts, and still win President.


Systemic Racism

Hey Asshole,

I bet if Ron DeSantis told you his friend was framed for murder by crooked Florida prosecutors, you would listen to him. So people who are politically connected don't get framed for murder by scumbag cops, and people who aren't politically connected get abused.

Hey, that would be SYSTEMIC RACISM. It is not because you are actually racist. But the effect is that black people, who are less likely to know Ron DeSantis or Chris Sprowls, are more likely to be framed for murder.

And here Thomas Sowell said it was impossible to prove systemic racism exists.

I guarantee if there were no black people like Sweden, white people would have more of a problem with crooked cops and prosecutors framing people. So because the US is racially and culturally diverse, makes people less sensitive to the suffering of other races. How could we test this hypothesis? Compare sentences, the use of coerced testimony, and other aspects of the justice system, to democracies that are more racially homogeneous.

And here senile fuckface Thomas Sowell has the entire Republican party singing like parrots in the zoo, that it is scientifically impossible to define hypotheses to test if there is "systemic racism".

Fuck all of you scumbag election losers. See you where idiots go, socialist hell.


Dear Texas State Senator

The proposed jailhouse witness legislation HB 2631 is a fake fix that will at most cure 5% of false convictions, and might increase them. It is a politically feasible fake fix, from theorists who have not actually sat in a trial and watched jailhouse witnesses lie for hours like I have.

First, the jury instruction. Jurors don't pay attention to jury instructions. Their instructions in murder cases are dozens of pages long, with lesser charges and required conditions. When supposedly honest government employees in suits tell jurors to listen to a person, no balanced written instruction is going to change their perceptions.

If the jury instruction has any effect or is even noticed or remembered, it can make things worse. The jury instruction can mislead the jury to imagine they are the first person to wonder if the jailhouse witness is a liar. Defense attorneys are not allowed to say "this person is lying" or tell jurors that jailhouse witnesses usually are liars, or be open and honest about what is going on. So everyone in the courtroom except the jury can know the jailhouse witness is lying. But the jury instruction makes it seem like everybody else in the room assumes it is the truth, and it is the job of the jurors to break from the pack and be the first ones to question whether the jailhouse witness is honest.

So far as a reliability hearing, the judge literally has no basis to know whether a jailhouse witness is lying. I drank two glasses of water today. Am I lying? Judges cannot choose to allow hearsay, and nor should they be allowed to. But politics will force judges to allow jailhouse witnesses to testify, unless their testimony is so inconsistent, that they could have already been discredited in front of the jury.

There is no evidence that judges will bar additional jailhouse witnesses whom jurors would have believed. Remember, judges ALREADY have the ability to acquit defendants after the prosecution rests, if they think the jailhouse witness is unreliable. And they are afraid to. The judge is captive to the same political incentives, as the prosecutor who puts on a fraud for votes.

The pretrial reliability hearing just puts a facade of legitimacy on an almost certain liar and false conviction. The number of people in jail willing to lie to get out, is a thousand times larger than the number of people willing to confess to stay in. And so jailhouse witnesses are 1000-to-1 liars.

Suppose someone told you that all I had to do to get out of prison, is say I drank two glasses of water today. Then you would know I was lying. So how come the jury doesn't figure that out? Because this is the jury's first day here, they have no idea what is going on. They assume it can't really be that simple and that crooked. They assume the people who know what is going on, would not all zip up their lips and put it on the jury to figure out the trick.

How is the jury supposed to know the government pays people to lie, unless somebody tells them? How is the jury supposed to know the legislature is happy to let liars out of prison to lock up perceived undesirables, unless somebody tells them?

The result of HB 2631 is basically a trial by judge, instead of by jury. The judge is put on the spot to put a stamp on a false conviction, whatever crap the prosecutor wants to coerce and manufacture. While the victim's family who have been lied to by the prosecution, stand there and cry on TV. From that point it is a mock trial, a complete scam. It is a process to convict anyone, regardless of guilt, based on the pressure of the mob on the judge and prosecutor. It is whatever the 51% outside the courthouse want, a witch trial.

Here is an analysis of the failed jury instruction in Florida:

Florida Supreme Court Innocence Commission Embarrassing Charade

Here is an analysis of the general impact of coerced jailhouse witnesses:

Coerced Jailhouse Confession Witness Satanic Scam

And here is a story about someone serving life without parole from age 21, for a crime that didn't happen, based on lying jailhouse witnesses, and a judge who was politically afraid to do anything about a mock trial:

seminolescam.com

The only real fix is to not let dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying to victimize the innocent, and to create penalties for perjury and those who supervise it, and an independent institution to prosecute it. That will never happen.

I will make sure nobody gets political credit for this sissy fake fix, that will continue putting innocents in prison and letting dangerous felons out.

Justice Without Fraud - A Challenge To Republicans Running For Office

Democrats need crooked cops and prosecutors like they need poverty, to prove that you are a racist every election cycle. I am presenting a challenge to Republicans to fix a deep and simple problem in the justice system. Instead of the usual political theater of trying to tweak things in the judicial branch without offending anyone, there needs to be an independent institution in the executive branch, to prosecute misconduct by police and prosecutors. People need a number they can call to address their issue before they get to the voting booth.

Republicans demand more prosecution and tougher penalties for criminals. But we don't want to be pandered to and cheated with fake prosecutions where the state uses paid or coerced witnesses, often aggressive felon predators and drug dealers who are rewarded by being put back on the street, to frame incompetent people, instead of doing the leg work of actually solving hard cases. And we are tired of spending money to campaign against radical nihilists who have lost faith in the justice system and want judges who let everyone out of prison, because there is no independent institution in the executive branch to punish and deter misconduct by police and prosecutors. The justice system has become a dysfunctional casino of perverted case law and mandatory minimums, where the innocent are convicted and the guilty go free.







Do you agree that a prosecutor who pays a criminal to take an innocent person's life with false statements is a criminal? Will you support new legislation to create an independent institution in the executive branch, to punish lazy and sociopathic "serial killer" prosecutors, who coerce witnesses facing prosecution, reward convicted witnesses with freedom, or otherwise pay witnesses, in cases that are ultimately overturned, costing immeasurable lives and money (and leading to entire families who vote Democrat for generations)?


email 2ulive on gmail to support, oppose, or debate this position, or for more information

________________________________________


There is no jury instruction that can repair the damage, in a trial taken over by a paid storyteller who was not even there when the crime was committed, and is not interrupted or made to stutter or limited, by any of the usual constraints of evidence gathering, authentication, and presentation that hobble every other type of evidence and witness. 50% of death-penalty cases exonerated by DNA involved jailhouse witnesses. More than 140 people have been exonerated in murder cases involving jailhouse witnesses since 1966. Why do Republicans want felons, whom they wouldn't even allow to vote, to be paid to take the lives of innocents, and manufacture millions of Democrat voters in the process?

Here is an example of the kind of case that makes it very difficult for Republicans to get elected, even running against total degenerates like Andrew Gillum:

Experts: DA should act to free man convicted in Ga. church murders


Paying felons to lie to take an innocent person's life is a heinous crime. But it is not currently against the law, and happens very often. Most attorneys are familiar with it, but they have a professional courtesy where they do not wish to prosecute their peers lest they might be prosecuted themselves. Of course defense lawyers, who have often worked as prosecutors themselves, and who lie even more as defense attorneys, support immunity for lawyers.

The solution proposed by the Florida Supreme Court was of course a solution available to the judicial branch: a jury instruction. But that is totally ineffective. Just as judges letting criminals out of prison is an ineffective deterrent to police who break the law, with illegal searches or by tampering with evidence.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement told me it is the job of private defense attorneys to prosecute police who break the law! That is totally ineffective! The local public defender not only has a high caseload and junior attorneys, but he goes to the same church as the local police and his children attend school with their children.

There has to be some consequence when a prosecutor is found to have suborned perjury to take an innocent person's life. There currently is no consequence, no deterrent. The only consequence is a person who spends $500,000 on lawyers might get out of prison 15 years later. In that time the bad actors will have gone on to wrongfully convict dozens more people.


________________________________________


ARGUMENT: If prosecutors face legal liability for wrongful convictions, won't that deter them from prosecuting crimes? How will you be able to hire any prosecutors?

Everybody faces legal liability, police, doctors, even interior decorators. Why should prosecutors be exempt? And everything has consequences. The question is which consequence is preferable? If prosecutors refused to prosecute murder, the consequence would be vigilantes and lynch mobs taking it into their own hands in the street.

The consequence of prosecutors being punished when they are caught taking an innocent person's life by paying witnesses to lie, would be slightly fewer convictions, including fewer convictions of innocent people. The consequence of letting prosecutors get away with anything, is people lose trust in the system, and vote for Democrats who will let everyone out of prison!


Background

I recently had to sit in court and watch violent felons tell lie after lie after lie, with the consequence that they were let out of prison early, and my friend got life without parole for something that didn't even happen. As I started talking to people about it, I learned something surprising: A lot of people had similar experiences, where they felt some cop or prosecutor was like Al Gore with no controlling legal authority, and there was literally nobody they could call. They lost trust in the system.

These were conservative people, often simple and inarticulate, on right-wing websites and in Republican neighborhoods, who hold the same values and should be turning out Republican. But instead they think they are libertarians, or they don't vote at all. Or they reject traditional and Christian conservatives as "the old boys network" and only become intrigued by counter-culture candidates. The solution is not, as Andrew Breitbart suggested, a "punk-rock Republican" to appeal to people superficially. It is simply to create an independent institution in the executive branch, so that police and prosecutors can be held liable in an orderly and standardized and transparent way the same as every other profession.

Right now it is taboo to perform any outside scientific analysis of the outcomes produced in the justice system. I was told trial exhibits are even shielded from public scrutiny. How can the public perform oversight? Untold millions are spent regulating doctors and insurance companies, or putting cars through crash tests to see how each one performs. But nobody will spend the money to even take a small statistical sample of criminal cases, and say let's see if an independent review can validate these outcomes.

Right now there are not even statistics that we could use to have a rational debate about the cost of misconduct by police and prosecutors. The only statistic is votes for Democrats. Yes, the voter is the regulator. As a Republican, I am not enjoying that paradigm. As long as there are lying witnesses whom the rules of evidence won't even let you call a liar, and who can take over a trial by telling the whole narrative in a single breath instead of bits and pieces over days, and as long as there are crooked cops and prosecutors who use this scam and a dozen others, Democrats will call Republicans evil racists and win elections.

The solution to actually improve the justice system is not Democrats calling Republicans racists. The solution is not some "judicial reform" where you tiptoe around the real problem and tweak a few things here and there, while both sides avoid offending their base. Every spineless politician who is afraid of the voter, tries to just use judges for some easy fix. The solution is an independent institution in the executive branch to investigate and prosecute police and prosecutors, and create a deterrent to manufacturing paid witnesses who are not known beyond a reasonable doubt to be telling the truth.

Democrats need a constant supply of wrongful convictions, and idiotic police who are "investigated" by their peers, so they can prove Republicans are racists. Every time a cop or a witness lies, people vote Democrat, and it is a brick in the road to serfdom. Republicans are too much pussies to do anything about it, for fear of being aligned with Big Mike Brown.

An SEC for police would not reduce policing and expose you to rapists and carjackers, any more than the actual SEC reduced public stock promotion. They sold more stock than ever with the SEC, because their reputations were protected from damage by the worst actors among them.

Voters Give Police a Mandate To Lie



What is worse, Cuties, or coerced jailhouse confession so-called witnesses used to give life sentences to innocents? I expect Nolte to obfuscate and defend that second one like a depraved agent of satan, rather than cancel any Republicans over it. Sick man, that Nolte.



I'm a real conservative. Not a cop worshipper who seeks utopia through government. And then gets red flagged and shot when he comes to the door, lol.



Cops are aggressively defended, and supported and awarded, when caught in the crime of perjury. It is not a mistake, it is a voter preference for cops to commit perjury.



People can be abusive. That is why we have police. But you don't see the same need to punish and deter those police when they are abusive. I hear over and over, how police are rewarded for misconduct.

People don't like seeing Casey Anthony or OJ Simpson walk out. So they send the police out with a mandate: Next time, fake evidence, frame them, do what you have to. So then police hook an innocent person, frame him, and get a parade. And if the victim's family complains, screw him, he is a communist, it is a war on police!



I hear over and over from people who had a problem with a cop lying. And when they tried to report it, they were told to call 1-800-E-A-T-S-H-I-T. Because there is a war on cops, which means cops are at war with anyone who complains.

But I didn't invent this idea that cops have a mandate to lie. I heard it from people over and over, Republicans. I was surprised when I heard it, and so I wrote an essay about it. The essay resonated with so many people who had the same experience, I made a website.

There is a vast range of people giving a mandate for police to engage in misconduct. The simplest is the most common, dumb statements like "Police should shoot a scumbag like Jacob Blake for the public good, who cares if he had a weapon or not." It is just bravado on the web, but the people who say it really believe it. And obviously police would then have to obfuscate, or come up with stories to justify the shooting, which some people truly think is good and right even if the justification is fake.

The next level might be, well, suppose a bunch of people are at a party, and someone gets shot. We don't know who really did it. But suppose we threaten the guy with life whose car the gun was thrown into the back seat. But only if he swears this other person did it, and this third person was in on it. We don't know if he even knows who really did the shooting. But getting one to lie to lock them all up, is better than letting everyone get away.

Or suppose the cop didn't even find the gun in the back seat, but lies and says he did to pressure the first guy to finger someone. Or suppose the cop hides that he found blood somewhere else, which would otherwise prove the guy who owns the car didn't do it. If the cop has to say he found the gun in his car, or hide the blood, to pressure the first guy to lie, so be it. Lock them all up. Surely you will agree there are people here on Breitbart who will say "Who cares, they are all lowlife thugs, lock them all up, the cop did good."

The next level might be like my friend who is serving two life sentences for a crime that didn't happen. She was arrested for having 7 pounds of GHB, it was a moral panic, it went into a hundred newspapers. The crime lab said the police were wrong, all charges were dropped. A year later, her boyfriend shot a guy in the leg who later fell off a balcony. The cop told the papers it was a planned robbery.

Then the cop's evidence fell apart. They were not in communication and could not have been coordinating. What he mistook for a robbery plan, was something unrelated. So he faked some new evidence to keep making it look like a robbery. Well today I can prove that tons of evidence was faked. But they made him LEO of the Year for inventing the evidence. And absolutely every cop in Florida will stand in a circle around him, to protect him from getting in trouble on behalf of a girl who was arrested with 7 pounds of date rape drug. Nobody asked him to fake evidence, but afterwards they protect him. And that is what Republican tough-on-crime people want. Let the druggy rot in jail, protect the cop, we will vote for people doing that again all day.

The next level might be like the Florida Supreme Court Innocence Commission. They saw that 50% of murder convictions exonerated when DNA was invented, involved lying jailhouse witnesses. This is when the deputies at the jail give an inmate a newspaper with the allegations in it, or create an opportunity for an inmate to steal a police report from another inmate's cell. When they have no other evidence, they threaten another inmate with life, and then reduce the sentence when that inmate swears the other inmate confessed to whatever the allegation is.

Sheriff Doughnut Bill Cameron of Charlotte sat on the Innocence Commission. He went in there with a mandate from Florida sheriffs and their Republican constituency, to make sure they could keep getting their coerced liars in front the the jury, and no judge would have the discretion to stop it. Today state attorneys like Phil Archer will tell their constituents they need this category of witness or we will go back to the 1970's and rapists and carjackers will get your family. Even though he knows it is garbage, a scam. And his voters vote him back in office for doing this.

There are absolutely people here on Breitbart, voters, whom I get examples from like these. There are people who will say wait a minute, this girl was arrested with 7 pounds of GHB a year earlier? You say that is not true, but I believe it is true because the papers say it is. Well come on, it is good that cop framed her for murder. If you go to my website, I may even have transcribed some of those types of arguments over there.

And I think you know there are people right here on Breitbart who will say that person was arrested with heroin a year earlier? That person was previously accused of rape? Well it is good that cop lied and faked evidence to lock him up. And the people here on Breitbart are examples of a popular sentiment, a common line of thinking.



No amount of cameras can make up for a lack of any deterrent from punishing cops who get caught. It's like okay, so this cop lied, send him back out next shift. Oh, but fire that judge who let a criminal go because the cop lied.



I was speaking figuratively. What they actually do is try to campaign on term limits for judges or vote them out or vote for politicians who will appoint different judges. Or more often remove discretion from judges with mandatory minimums or in any other way possible. Or circumvent the whole process, by just having police lie, to predetermine the outcome of the trial regardless of what the judge does.

Often when a judge knows the cops and prosecutor are lying, the judge will give a suspended sentence, to nullify the verdict. Or will give a sentence that better fits actual guilt. When you pass a mandatory minimum law, you are in effect firing the judge.

Here is an example of Sheriff Doughnut Bill Cameron of Charlotte subverting the whole justice system and its credibility in Florida, to make judges irrelevant and push perjuring jailhouse witnesses past them:

Florida Supreme Court Permits Perjury

They sat down to solve the problem that 50% of murder convictions exonerated when DNA was invented, resulted from jailhouse witnesses. Some states allow judges to bar such witnesses, which they absolutely should because they are pure evil garbage. If you like the death penalty, you should be aware that 90% of opposition to the death penalty, and 90% of the costs in practice, probably result from jailhouse witnesses.

So it is a real problem that jailhouse witnesses lie, a problem from your point of view. But faced with the fact that judges might try to fix it when sheriffs manufacture liars at the jail, the sheriffs argued that the judge was the problem. And rather than give the judge any discretion, the most they were willing to give was a less-than-worthless jury instruction. So faced with an inmate provided with information by the sheriff and coerced to lie by the sheriff at the jail, they decided to fire the judge, in effect, by depriving the judge of discretion to limit the witness.



I really don't GAF what a judge thinks. Because a judge cannot, and especially a local judge will not, investigate punish and deter police from lying. So judges are just worthless political punching bags, in my opinion, spending all day struggling and failing to get the law right and run trials in a uniform way. Since judges cannot become relevant in deterring police perjury, what judges should do is inform, instead of mislead the public about what goes on in courtrooms. You should tell the public yes, contrary to your ideal image of the justice system, there are lies all day, and there is nothing I can or will do about it. So Breitbart idiots need to realize that courtrooms are worse garbage than the post office or the DMV, before you hand out any more life sentences in pursuit of utopia.



Unfortunately that "very small minority" came within a half inch of electing Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams, beat Trump by 2.8 million votes, and is about to wipe Republicans out of office and replace them with marxists. But if you don't see that, then I have a pillow to sell you.



One thing people don't realize, is there is no more "media". Not in the sense of the left-wing journalist shadowing police and rooting out corruption all day. Newspapers, and local newspapers entirely, laid off all their reporters and just have interns who copy-paste Twitter and transcribe youtube. So the "media" demonizing a cop today, is just a bunch of idiots sharing video clips on Twitter. And actual newspapers are cozy with cops and want to earn favor from them. Because cops are their only investigative journalists, producing click-worthy local gossip with no threat of a libel suit.

Of course the mayor is in the same political party with the police chief and probably went to high school with him. The newspapers are down to a skeleton staff of idiots copying local sports scores. The idiots on Twitter very rarely get a good cop video, and when they do, they take it out of context. Any criminal who complains about police misconduct is smeared as having a past arrest, so that you literally have to be a nurse with a halo over your head to be taken seriously when reporting a guy who once saved a dog for a crime. And if the family and sympathizers of the accused who is not a nurse complain, that is just the "war on cops" and they must be marxists and lowlifes. Trump is a political novice, who is told by Republican fossils how they won in the 1980's, by being tough on crime against the "rehabilitation and root causes" theorists.

Add it all up, and we are living in a golden age of perjury, used to convict the innocent. And it manufactures a cumulative demographic of disenchanted nihilists, who will vote to let everyone out of prison, with a greater persistence and inevitability than immigration. And you can see, these people are more passionate than someone who, for example, had his taxes raised 5%.

23 people per year per county who experience a consequence of police misconduct, each with 3 friends or family members, times 20 counties per state, times 50 states, times 30 years, comes out to 2.8 million, the number by which Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in the popular vote.



Another sad thing is nutjobs with a random teenage fantasy of "society truly breaks down" which fantasy they consider legitimate for policy debates.

I will give you an example of society breaking down. My female friend is serving life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen, because nobody cares if cops lie. An entire political party defending cops in the crime of perjury, is a broken down society.

Do you comprehend that there is no institution to deter those cops from committing perjury and victimizing the innocent for sport?





The media won't report it 1) the editor at the regional paper pressured the cops to lie, 2) papers have laid off everyone and no longer have the investigative and editorial capacity to verify and publish an inflammatory story, 3) most of the allegations are based on libel in papers, which is hard to fight from prison, 4) the victim of police perjury is white.

Papers don't want to prove the truth, that a cop victimized a white person, and punish him and fix it. Papers want to prove Republicans are racist, which can never be fixed, and win elections over and over until everything is gone.

You also don't appreciate that since papers laid off their reporters, police are their investigative reporters. Police are their only source of juicy local gossip which they can print without any libel risk. If they alienate police, they will have nothing to copy paste but local sports scores, and will go out of business. So they humor police as heroes, in a quid pro quo for stories they can sensationalize for clicks.

Of course lawmakers ignore cops lying. Republicans ignore all allegations of police misconduct since Ferguson, and since Heather MacDonald told them they need to, to save lives. Democrats say yes, we know cops lie, every day, get in line, vote us a majority and we will let everyone out. There is no incentive for politicians to waste time on individual cases.

Democrat lawmakers will for real tell you: Police perjury originated with slavery, and can be solved by fixing global warming. So helpful!

Or what if the defendant has a past drug arrest? Half the public likes for police to frame drug people.

You should try being a victim of police perjury and discover reality. I have proof, there is nobody to report it to.

I guarantee there will never be justice for those cops victimizing the innocent. The only hope is for it to happen less in the future.



You act like a crooked prosecutor is a problem with one prosecutor. But it is Republicans who block any effort to punish prosecutors who victimize the innocent, to create a deterrent. So all prosecutors are free to victimize the innocent without consequence like in ancient Rome. It was Clarence Thomas the originalist, who found something that is not in the Constitution, a prosecutor's right to have immunity to do whatever he pleases, supersedes the rights of the individual. It was Connick v Thompson where Scalia and Thomas erased much of any remaining deterrent to prosecutorial misconduct, by interpreting the archaic rights of the King of England to displace US law and the Constitution as broadly and completely as possible.

Trump is an ordinary moderate. The mainstream of Republicans are to the left of Trump right now, in that they will defend a corrupt government institution, police and prosecutors, at all costs, based on a utopian notion of the justice system based on zero actual experience.



As a voter, is it really your job to guess? Or do you have a responsibility to do better than that?

99% of instances of police misconduct, and 99.99% of allegations of police misconduct, are never written down much less published for voters to understand what is going on, and fulfill their responsibility. An entire political party has been led by Heather Macdonald to believe they have a moral obligation to ignore allegations of police misconduct, and insulate police from any consequences, to save lives. I have personally witnessed police committing perjury in four states, and there is no record of it anywhere for you to find out about it. I have witnessed police committing perjury to convict my friend of murder. If I didn't tell you about it, you wouldn't know. And because it is coming from me, even though I have documented it thoroughly, you still don't believe it.

So because of all that, there is no deterrent to police committing perjury. And there is a reward, because police can clear cases, and portray themselves as heroes, and it is a sport. Would you like to stop guessing, and instead have an independent institution in the executive branch to require reports, and punish reporting failures like the SEC, of every time a cop is accused of misconduct? So that you can act responsibly as a voter, instead of spouting theories like a leftist or global warming person?





Do you agree that any institution which gives people death sentences, should not leave voters to compare their guesses about how often police commit perjury? 99% of instances of police misconduct, and 99.99% of allegations of police misconduct, are never written down much less published for voters to understand what is going on, and fulfill their responsibility. An entire political party has been led by Heather Macdonald to believe they have a moral obligation to ignore allegations of police misconduct, and insulate police from any consequences, to save lives. I have personally witnessed police committing perjury in four states, and there is no record of it anywhere for you to find out about it. I have witnessed police committing perjury to convict my friend of murder. If I didn't tell you about it, you wouldn't know. And because it is coming from me, even though I have documented it thoroughly, you still don't believe it.

So because of all that, there is no deterrent to police committing perjury. And there is a reward, because police can clear cases, and portray themselves as heroes, and it is a sport. As Sowell will tell you, any time man has no deterrent, and anything to gain by it, he will do evil. Would you like to stop guessing, and instead have an independent institution in the executive branch to require reports, and punish reporting failures like the SEC, of every time a cop is accused of misconduct?



Well Throatpunch, there are laws created through a designed process to determine who gets locked up. If police and local government hacks that process to shoot and lock up whomever they want to, and then lie and cover up to avoid being locked up themselves, the political party that supports that will lose. So there is is really no role for self-determining individuals and mirrors, in designing the process or the outcome. It is sick people breaking the law with no fear of consequence, to determine who gets shot and locked up. And they are supported by nazis like you, who want to lock up people you find undesirable, outside of what the law prescribes.

You are just saying if people weren't lowlifes, then you wouldn't want to break the law to lock them up. So it is their own fault you support police and prosecutors resorting to criminal behavior.



You don't believe in democracy and the law. You believe if a person was once arrested for drugs or beating his wife, then police in your neighborhood are allowed to frame him for a crime he didn't do because you don't like him. And then you say your choice to not apply the law and to ignore the legislature and the voter, is his fault for being a bad person.

Real life example. Mandi Jackson was arrested with 7 pounds of GHB. Crime lab said the cops were wrong, all charges were dropped, that never went into the paper. Later, her boss made her go home with him, her boyfriend got into a fight with her boss, and her boss later fell off his balcony. The cops faked evidence and gave her two life sentences. Examples of perjury in the case:

seminolescam.com/sirens
seminolescam.com/fleeing
seminolescam.com/bullet
seminolescam.com/witnesses
seminolescam.com/reiss
seminolescam.com/brady


Do you believe that because Mandi Jackson was once arrested with GHB (she wasn't), and she hangs out with bad people, that she and her family and the taxpayer and the dead guy's family deserve life without parole from age 21, and the cops who lied did a good thing? Even though that never passed the legislature?

You have defined other people's individual responsibility as your personal preference. You say this is what I would like, and if anyone who disagrees with me has ever sinned, then they deserve to suffer something they don't like, as an appropriate price for their sins. It is a neat way to trick yourself into thinking substituting your own personal preference for law and democracy is moral.

You call it other people's individual responsibility to suffer through whatever you desire, even if you never submitted your desire to the democratic process.



Don't lie. We don't all want police reform. When Democrats ignored your bill, you quietly put it in your pocket, to save for no other purpose than to write the letter you just wrote, months later.

Compare this to when Pelosi and the Democrats refused to pass a virus relief bill around the same time. Republicans all shouted as loud as they could, that Democrats are blocking the relief.

The reality is, most people in gerrymandered districts want police to be able to break the law as needed, to round up undesirables. People want to be able to look the other way on police misconduct, against the untermenschen up the street.

Police lying is a ring of power, from an ancient time. Whoever has local political control over police, can use the police as a tool of aggression at their whim. They will never throw that ring back into the fire.

Police lying is a worn out hollywood cliche. But some Republicans live in a reality where they will tell you with a straight face that it doesn't happen. That, and not Democrats, is why your bill didn't get passed.

The politics of police is kind of like lotto and drunk driving. Everyone thinks they might win the lotto, and someone else will get in trouble drunk driving. Everyone thinks it is great that police lie, because it will be used against someone else, not their own family members.

Meanwhile, criminal justice is the most truthless profession in the United States. It is the only industry where not just government employees, but also newspapers, can broadcast defamatory lies to destroy innocent people and advance their own careers. And that is actually the primary product.

Republicans will never know why they lost.

Republican Cop Cult Disconnects from Reality



Are you joking? You think this is any different from 99% of other cases, which the grand jury usually calls murder? I can show you a guy who someone else crashed a boat into an illegal unlit dock extension at night, that person straight lied telling a different story every time, and they convicted the boat owner of manslaughter. I can show you my friend serving life without parole from 21 for a crime that didn't happen. The justice system has a major credibility problem and Republicans don't get it.



The Republican cop cult suddenly complaining about someone being prosecuted is beyond ridiculous. It is sickly. And that is why Republican vision is so distorted, that they actually believe they have seen their poll numbers in Wisconsin go up.

Republicans celebrate the false prosecution every day, of anyone they consider undesirable. Their foremost political objective is to insulate and protect the freedom of local police and prosecutors to prosecute and frame the innocent at their total discretion, without consequence.

This is the moment which Thomas Sowell described in "Vision of the Anointed" when a movement cuts itself off from reality.





Republicans crush other people's kids all year. Ann Coulter would have some advice for the guy who killed himself: You don't want to go to prison, then don't break the law, it's as simple as that.



Every time someone on Breitbart clamors for the death penalty for an illegal alien rapist, they got the story from a newspaper which left out all the details except the click bait. And which newspaper avoids any liability for libel by saying "according to police."



I have a legislative proposal, to regulate local prosecutors at the state level, on my web site. Republicans don't want it. Because they want the leeway to enforce what they wish the law was, the way they wish for the law to be enforced, in their own counties.



You should like my website cops2prisonDOTorg, wherein I propose an independent institution in the executive branch to investigate and prosecute prosecutors.



Before Nolte gets on his high horse, he should consider that many of these felons were let out of prison as a reward for swearing lies against an innocent person. This is primarily supported by Republicans, such as State Atttorney "BTK" Phil Archer and Sheriff "Doughnut" Bill Cameron.

Talk about abusing something, the criminal justice system is built on threatening people with life sentences, unless they swear to exactly what the prosecution wants them to say, often about a complete stranger.

How many of these felons were convicted based on the coerced or paid testimony of other felons? Felons are paid to lie in court to get convictions in other felony cases. It is no more complicated than that. And Republicans think that is really cool.



Payback for injustice?

You people are such sad whiners. I did not bother reading the Trump-haired hermaphrodite's column. This is what police and prosecutors have been doing for a long time, to people with past drug arrests, specifically to please people like Ann Coulter. Every time someone gets shot, people here instantly say look what kind of person he was. He was arrested or accused in the past for xyz. He deserved to get shot.

Police and prosecutors framed my friend for murder because she had a past drug arrest, proven false by the crime lab (though that second part never made it into the newspapers). Of course people in the cop cult are happy about it, and will call me a communist if I complain. I heard from so many people with similar experiences, I wrote an essay about it "Massive Demand to Lock Up the Innocent in a Democracy." My essay was so well received, I turned it into a website which is my name, cops2prisonDOTorg.

I am quite familiar with the exercise put on by Jake Gardner's sympathizers, running around pathetically trying to tell people what really happened. My version is a website and book, at seminolescamDOTcom. Nobody cares, any more than anybody remembers Officer Rolfe or Nathaniel Woods.

Welcome to justice in a democracy, slimeballs. Now you get some idea why the Founders crossed the ocean in a sailboat, and wrote the Bill of Rights to stick a hand in the face of police.



Everything in the criminal justice system is fake, a narrative. Like with most criminal cases, you don't care what the truth is. The black lives matter people are white people who consider cops to be habitual offenders, framing cops for racism to finally put them away.



I didn't complain about it whatsoever. Because I assumed police would rise to the occasion and get serious matters right. Then the opposite happened when they framed my friend for murder. I saw that the more the public is involved, the lower police drop.

And it is not a problem with police being human, everybody in all professions is human. It is a problem that the local political establishment wants to regulate police locally, to enforce the laws they would prefer, in the way they would prefer them enforced.

So suppose a Democrat area wants police to be able to harass and frame Trump supporters. They would prefer that there is no organized system to record or publish accusations of police misconduct. They would prefer that they are allowed to let felons out of jail, as a reward for lying about Republicans in court. So it is the human race that is bad as a whole, or in principle.

The Bill of Rights and our other founding documents, were designed to channel and dissipate and accommodate human nature. But mobs of men are inclined always to use government to pursue utopia, where that may mean using cops to lock up undesirables in mock trials.



I will tell you a sheriff story that won't be published here. There was a scumbag in the Seminole County jail Julie Madara. She was sentenced to 10 or 12 years in prison for breaking into home after home after home, stealing old people's irreplaceable heirlooms, and pawning them for crack.

The Seminole County sheriffs gave Julie Madara a newspaper with a story about another inmate in it, who was accused of murder, but they had no actual evidence. Julie Madara read the story in the newspaper about the crime the other inmate supposedly committed. Then the Seminole County sheriffs took all the paperwork of the inmate who was accused of murder, and threw it in a pile in the day room. Julie Madara read the police report, which said exactly what the other inmate was accused of.

Julie Madara swore the other inmate confessed the murder to her, consisting of an incorrect mishmash of the details she obtained. Even though the story Julie Madara told was impossible, the jury convicted the other inmate of murder, with no other evidence than Julie Madara swearing the other inmate confessed to the story the sheriffs gave her.

So with no other evidence, they gave a 21-year-old girl life without parole. The Seminole County sheriffs stood guard whlle the scumbag felon told lie after lie on the stand, and the other inmate's family, friends, and grandmother heaved and wailed with tears in court. Because they knew exactly what was going on, and how the scam works, but you are not allowed to tell the jury. And they let the scumbag who stole old people's heirlooms for crack out of prison, for swearing to lies on the stand

The last thing they did, before letting the scumbag felon out of prison, was redact the addresses of her victims from the court record. So that she could not go take revenge on them.

And this is not a unique event, it is common practice. So if every sheriff in the country burns in hell with screaming suffering for 5 billion years,. it will not be long enough in my opinion.



Sheriff Doughnut Bill Cameron of Charlotte claimed to be representing all sheriffs in Florida, when he defended this scam from efforts by the Florida Supreme Court to put an end to it. And I don't see any other sheriffs clamoring for sheriffs around the country who use this scam, or even the felons who get out of jail by committing perjury, to be arrested.

Florida Sheriff Doughnut Bill Cameron Advocates For Freeing Felons

Final Report of the Florida Supreme Court Innocence Commission

It is a cancer all the way around, all joining hands.



There is a massive demand to lock up the innocent in a democracy. The other inmate I spoke of, has a story in Google in 100 newspapers, of being arrested trafficking 7 pounds of drugs. The crime lab said the police were wrong, she possessed no illegal drugs, and the charges were dropped. But that never went into the newspaper. So to a man, Republicans will tell me that girl was arrested with 7 pounds of drugs and got off, it is good they framed her for murder.

Sadly, this is more important to Republicans than all the other things they claim to stand for. And it is why we are about to lose the country to marxists and nihilists, one month from today.

But I noticed, when the voters do what you suggest, and vote for the other party like they did in New York, Republicans call them irrational.

It is a shame people have to vote for marxists, because Republicans refuse to punish cops who are caught in the crime of perjury like this one:

ASPD Officer Jackson Athaide Commits Perjury



But the day has come when Republicans invest their hopes in a utopia through government, in this case the justice system. Thomas Sowell said of Heather MacDonald's "The War on Cops" this book will save lives! We will see how that works out. Americans have always liked police even less than communism. Those who sailed on the Mayflower were fleeing police, and entered a pact for communism. It is natural for men in their hearts to hate police and love communism. Because communism they have a dream of saving from corruption, and turning to their own ends. Few outside of today's Republicans dream of turning police to their own ends.



It is actually Heather MacDonald who built the broad brush. In "The War On Cops" she had a chapter "Handcuffing The Police." The result is everyone who reads that book or talks to someone who did, comes away with this impression that anyone who complains about police misconduct is part of some scam movement to "handcuff the police" and undermine law and order. So it is a universal mindset that anyone who tries to hold police accountable is a marxist, and recording allegations of police misconduct is irresponsible. This mindset is uniform, having been reproduced in every city in America, where police can now break any law, and say "don't handcuff me." So the result of Heather MacDonald's work is widespread anger at the police who see the public as the enemy in this war, and the destruction of the Republican party that stands with them.



What about judges and juries and defense lawyers? Do they stand in the way of what you have voted and paid for? Are they a threat to democracy, an unelected, irrational, and subversive branch of government?



The one person most responsible for the current political climate is Heather Macdonald. Anyone knows there is no independent institution in the executive branch to investigate and prosecute police, and deter police misconduct. By design, it is the job of those accused of crimes to investigate police misconduct. The FDLE specifically told me it is the job of private defense attorneys to prosecute police when they break the law. In her book "The War on Cops" Heather Mcdonald characterized this designed, intended part of the criminal justice system as a war. By doing so, she declared war on anyone who complains about police misconduct, and their families and sympathizers. She effectively declared a war by police and their supporters, their worship cult, on the general public. As if the general public is not a legitimate participant! As if the general public is more corruptible, and the government less corruptible! And she said that Republicans have a moral mandate to ignore allegations of police misconduct, to insulate police from any consequences of wrongdoing, to save lives.



Another thing Trump supporters miss, is how broad and deep the dissatisfaction with police is. Republicans think it is some artificial movement, manufactured by agitators. But it is a genuine grassroots movement.

Republicans don't realize the extent to which elected officials are hearing local noise from passionate individuals complaining about the police, through whatever channels their voters use to contact them. I have been able to infer the level of this noise, by talking to some elected officials or their agents.



This is what happens when Heather MacDonald's "Handcuffing the Police" chapter spreads and gets parroted by the average idiot, who is not really a deep thinker on justice issues. Most of the Bill of Rights is designed to handcuff police. Do you think our Founders, who complained in the Declaration of Independence of murderers getting away with it, wrote the Bill of Rights to make it easier for criminals to get away with it in their ideal society? No. They know police, and any institution that is less"handcuffed", does not serve its purpose more. It becomes more corrupt and less accountable, and serves its purpose less. In the case of the USA today, the police are like a dog that bit too many people to the ruin of its owner, the Republican party.

The time from Heather MacDonald saying don't handcuff the police, to the destruction of the Republican party, was four years. Body cameras were another factor.



I am not a liberal. And Republicans refuse to compel complete and honest stats from police on a variety of misconduct issues. It is true, people who are angry at cops are doing what cops do: Go for the big prize, murder, even if they have to frame them for it.



I agree, let's see the stats. Let's create a new independent institution in the executive branch, to require reporting and punish reporting failures like the SEC, of every time a cop is accused of any kind of perjury, or failure to collect evidence, or selective evidence processing, or suspected evidence tampering. I want to be able to search by date, name, agency, defendant, reporter, I want it on the web to search by every field in the report. And I want all the trial exhibits and transcripts online. And I want a record of every time a felon testifies, whether as a normal witness, a coerced co-defendant, or a coerced jailhouse so-called witness, and what agency did the coercing. And I want the name of every prosecutor who has jurisdiction to act on any report of police misconduct, and the action that prosecutor took. And I want the outcome of every case where there were allegations of police or prosecutor misconduct. Then we can use stats like that to do honest research, and have an honest debate. And we can do what any brand does when its image suffers, use big data and product-quality metrics to improve the product.



This sudden Republican idea that you don't have freedom unless cops give you your freedom is Democrat psychology, Obama's "you didn't build that."



Mankind was always evil. Add police and you have evil police.



Exhibit A.



All the supposed values of the Republican Party are styrofoam props, when they support police in the crime of perjury.



If Republicans didn't oppose an independent institution in the executive branch to compel reporting, and punish reporting failures like the SEC, and initiate investigations into police and prosecutors, it would not be a problem. It was the Republican guru Heather McDonald who said the only institution tasked with regulating police and prosecutors, the citizen, is illegitimate. Republicans declared war on the regulators of police.



Republicans conspire for decades to get around trials by jury, because jurors are not accountable to Republican voters. So Republicans give police and prosecutors a mandate to lie, to predetermine the outcome of trials.



I am not a communist. I am one of millions of white rural Republican voters who has lost everything because police and prosecutors in the United States can lie and victimize the innocent without consequence, thanks to sovereign immunity, the archaic rights of the King of England, interpreted in the broadest possible way by Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices, and thanks to the desire of Republican voters that it should be so. It is Republicans who have declared war on their fellow citizens, their neighbors, as having no rights. It is the preference of Republicans to lock up and shoot the innocent outside the written law, and then say it is their neighbor's own "personal responsibility" for being sinners.



I am talking about the executive branch at the state level. But what if there is tyranny of the majority at the local level. Are you comfortable with police misconduct against the local minority being ignored in safe districts in your state, resulting in your party losing slim-margin elections at the national level when the locally unpopular seek relief?



The Democrats peddle communism because innocents victimized by police find no ear in the Republican party.



Mankind is inherently corrupt. There need to be checks and balances.



Like all people throughout history, men will do evil anytime there is nobody to stop them. If local mayors operate independently like the Supreme Court, there is no Constitution at the local level.



Okay, so what if the better prosecutors are Soros pawns? What if the mayor is Bill DeBlasio? What if the people in that state, send Hillary Clinton and Sandy Hook Cortez to Congress? All because Republicans refused to offend their base, their tiny sliver of lying cops and prosecutors, their worship cult. Will you be happy that you got what you just asked for, and it ushers in a blue wave? Because Republicans refuse to be those better mayors, governors, and prosecutors?



Unlike you, I would like for my local Republicans to clean up lying police and prosecutors, so that people don't have to run to socialists.



You are forgetting that I never once asked for the Federal Government to be involved in my state. It is like you don't comprehend that there is an executive branch in my state, even after I point it out.



What state is that? Your state is about to elect Trump?



Yes, Portland is getting a Civics Lesson that millions of people have been victimized by the justice system, and they are more passionate about it than any other voters. But Republicans are stuck in lala land, thinking this is some astroturf that Soros planted, which is even dumber than the Democrats' Russia conspiracy.



It's funny that you seem to not even be aware of sheriffs.

What if I vote for the mayor to put innocent people in prison. Would you have a problem with that?



If police fake evidence, and there is no deterrent because there is no punishment when they are caught, then police and prosecutors can stage a mock trial to lock up whomever the mayor wants locked up, no?



Things changed when the mayor decided to overlook police faking evidence.



What if I want to elect a corrupt mayor? Because I don't like Mexicans or white capitalists or my neighbor or someone, and I want those people put in prison. Would you have a problem with that?



That's good, because I am going to vote for some people to knock on your door who enjoy punishing people as much as you enjoy being punished.



When "Billy Clinton" gets elected, you are still sniveling 20 years later.



Yes, it is too bad the Republicans offer nothing but tough talk and locking up even more innocents, and then cry when they get their teeth knocked out and shot, instead of free chicken and waffles.



I will tell you how the human race works. People spread lies about you if they don't like your policies. So you have to persuade enough thought leaders to carry your message to the gullible. Most people hate cops. Because they are above the law. When you worship cops blindly, you are pursuing a small sliver of voters. The rest will not defend you against lies. And you will lose.

Trump has approached the support of cops as a given. He hasn't made arguments or persuaded anyone who disagrees. He has not been like Reagan, making a case. So the other side has made the sale. I have made the sale, with evidence. But people don't want my experience, they have their own. Cops make the sale every day, all over the map, that they are intolerable.

It's ridiculous. All you ridiculous drama queens had to do is talk about increasing the deterrent, the penalty, for police and prosecutors who victimize the innocent, and you could have kept your American way of life. But instead, you broke paths with the American experience to worship government employees. In a politically suicidal delusion.



It amazes me that Tom Sowell would call BLM "self serving" and not police. It amazes me that Sowell would consider people like Coulter and Heather Mcdonald, who have less experience in policing and criminal trials than Hillary Clinton has in healthcare, "experts". It amazes me that Sowell would say of the book "The War on Cops" "this book will save lives" only to usher in the worst crime and police dysfunction and death in my memory. But that was a chance coincidence.



Ann is so close, yet so far, from realizing BLM is a movement of white people.



There is no deterrent to police and prosecutors lying, coercing lies, and losing and faking evidence. Republicans don't want there to be. For that reason Republicans have no credibility on criminal justice, are not taken seriously, and will lose even when people are getting murdered. For Republicans, criminal justice is not a matter of morals or ideals. It is just an old campaign tool, like a used car salesman wearing his same old polyester suit. Republicans no more care about the actual results of their promises, than Democrats care about the results of their own big-government promises.



Levin isn't doing a thing to stop what's coming. More people have contact with police than with the post office, schools, or the IRS. Republicans say if people have a bad experience with police, good, that's their fault, we don't believe them anyway, and we want to make the product worse when measured against the Constitution. Because liberals had bad justice policies 50 years ago. So Republicans race to be on the wrong side of the most passionate issue in this election. And they will call their own biggest fans communists and lose, rather than get a clue.



The Republican party supports police in the crime of perjury. Soros and colleges can't do any worse to Republicans than what they do to themselves.

If you don't care about police perjury victimizing the innocent, then all the supposed values of your party are styrofoam props. And there is nothing left but the orange, and a corpse will knock you down with one finger.



I gave you links. It's a lot of information. But you should examine your own assumption that a record of police perjury would be somewhere you could "look it up", if I didn't post it on the web.



The only person you are fooling is yourself, not knowing why Republicans are about to get wiped off the map. There is no penalty for refusing to accept complaints of police misconduct and hiding them. Even the few that are written down or proven, are never centrally reported or published anywhere. So by keeping all police and prosecutor misconduct in a cocoon of secrecy at the local level, by refusing to develop the data yourself, you say there is no data which you refused to develop, and it is all anecdotal.

And when there are bad cops, you say they can't be held responsible as individuals. They are the arm of a collective of all cops.

But then suppose there is a person with a past drug arrest in a house where someone gets shot, You say lie, fake evidence, lock him up, he is a thug, he is a Mexican immigrant, he bonded out. So Republicans are excited for newspapers to smear people with a broad brush, and give them life sentences or even death sentences for crimes they didn't do. And then you say your evil preference to disobey the written law, is actually their own personal responsibility for hanging out with lowlifes, for being a bad person. It is their fault you choose to reward police lies and falsely convict them because they are lowlifes.

And enough millions of people experience this firsthand, they figure out what is really going on, and what Republicans stand for. And Republicans, having lied to themselves, say why are all these millions of people voting for a corrupt socialist corpse over prosperity? We have refused to collect any data or believe any stories which could explain the destruction of our own party. And that is why Republicans are helpless to change course, and will blame it on Trump or Soros and not their own policies, their own war on their fellow citizens, when they get wiped off the map.

When there is no penalty for police misconduct, and in fact you insulate and even reward police misconduct, because Heather McDonald said you must to save lives, it will be incentivized to be everywhere, to be universal, like gravity. The same polices and philosophies, the same case law and lack of a regulatory mechanism, will produce the same outcome every day in every city.

Do you reject the idea that police who commit perjury and victimize the innocent should go to prison? If you think police who break the law should not be above the law, then you must agree with the name of my website, cops2prisonDOTorg.



But Republicans can't allow any penalty for police and prosecutors who commit perjury to victimize the innocent, because it would go against their constituency, and their belief that all complaints about the justice system are just race hustlers and rehabilitation/root causes people, making them "tough on crime" in contrast to libs.



But I thought Ann Coulter said everyone in prison is guilty



LOL, how would I know? There are no stats on how many convictions police were accused of perjury, how many convictions used coerced testimony or the testimony of felons, whether co-defendants, actual witnesses, or jailhouse so-called witnesses.

If you were to tell me 50% of convictions over 30 years sentence used the testimony of felons, I would say for at least half of those convictions the jury heard total nonsense.



In a jury trial, it doesn't matter if you come along the next day, and say look at the transcript, the prosecutor told five lies in two minutes. The jury hears it one time, and it's over. There is no video when a prosecutor lies at trial. The jury doesn't even get a transcript. It could take months and more money than you have to get a transcript, and the lies are often missing from the transcript. There is certainly nothing out there for people on Breitbart to examine.

To fix it, requires more money and years of work than many people work in their whole life, and more intelligence than most people have. There is no category of appeal for when the prosecutor lies. To even discover and communicate it, is prohibitive.

So prosecutors live in a process that is designed to reward lies used to victimize the innocent.



What they really fail to appreciate, is the extent to which they are killing Republicans and LEO's outside of Brevard. They say hey, we have a comfortable majority of support, we can do what we want. The people who live here are okay with this. So what if we lose 500 votes in Brevard over this. Then watch Biden win Florida by 500 votes.



Regarding your freedom: You didn't build that. The cops built that. Especially the Second Amendment, the cops gave that to you. All our freedoms are gifts from the cops.

This blather is some perversion of cold war military appreciation. They really believe you can win an election after declaring war on your fellow citizens.

The main purpose of the Constitution is to restrain police. Republicans are such mindless parrots that they are pro-police and pro-Constitution. That is like some Sandy Hook Cortez blather that everyone has the right to a nice house.

I have a simple question which anyone who can't answer will likely lose elections. Should police who lie and victimize the innocent go to prison?



Rep. Mo Brooks: "the tide seems to be turning in favor of America and the foundational principles of liberty and freedom that have combined to make us the greatest nation in world history. We can run down the issues real quick - law and order versus more riots and more crime..."

So according to Mo Brooks, police are one of our foundational principles.



The whole police siding with a party rubs me wrong. Judges in Florida do not advertise party loyalty. Police should also maintain at least a facade of disinterested impartiality. The great right-wing economist Thomas Sowell calls BLM "self serving." He calls all government institutions self-interested, at the expense of whatever altruistic purpose they are advertised as serving. This descends from the Austrian economic idea of Darwinian evolution in social processes. Any institution will place its own survival above all other values. Police, more than any other government agents, do their daily jobs outside the possibility of public scrutiny. So they should take the greatest precautions against bias and corruption. But police are so free from regulation, they don't even need to pretend to be unbiased. They just say "we are aligned with this group of people." They are rewarded for bias by a tyranny of the majority.



When you are talking to a party of zombies, who are obviously losing an election for six months, and too cut off from reality to change course, there is literally no tone of voice that can save the beached whale that is the Republican party.

Gee, I wonder if anyone bothered to check which direction the polls actually went, after Tom Cotton started running his excellent "the mob is coming for your house" ad.

Gee, we should listen to Ann Coulter who tells us soccer moms love seeing people get shot in the spine, or their teenage sons run around with rifles blowing lowlifes' arms off like Republican zombie video game.

Not only do soccer moms love people shooters, Americans have always loved police. Police are what Reagan said made the USSR better than the US. Police are what they sailed in the Mayflower to find more of. Police are what we thanked King George for in the Declaration of Independence, and celebrated in the Bill of Rights. Police are literally the source of your rights. You didn't build that.

Thanks for turning the country over to socialists, losers.

Is it too late for me to grovel before Republicans that they might actually give a thought to Constitutional rights after saying the word "Constitution" every day, or that they might prosecute police who commit perjury, after talking about "law and order" every day?

Or is there a clause in the Republican version of the Consitution that says if I copy paste, or say fuck you, I have no rights? And police are a Japanese overclass. You know what? FUCK YOU SCUMBAG!

Ashley Moody is a sick character out of a horror movie.



The criminal justice system is the most over-hyped, oversold, misunderstood, and fraudulent dysfunctional big-government utopia of all. Some dweeb like Ann Coulter who has never been charged with a big crime or probably even obtained all the discovery in such a case, is an expert



It was Heather Mcdonald who told Republicans to declare war on the common citizen, by saying police should be above the law and have no opposition, regulator, or resistance.



My friend is serving life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen. Not because anything like that ever passed the legislature. But because Republicans like it that way, and don't care about the law. For Republicans, the law is an obstacle to locking up innocents



Any collective force applied to an individual is government? Another cop-cult idiot argued that anarchy is "might makes right." If cops act outside the law and the Governor ignores it, that is not government. Ron DeSantis is not going to say "Yes I am glad Officer Athaide lied."



You know where there are no checks and balances, and there is tyranny of the majority? In the one government institution that touches the most people most often, with the most serious consequences: Policing. Suppose the Mayor of your town, or the 51% majority who elects the Sheriff, decides to ignore or suppress reports of police misconduct, and make sure there is no penalty whatsoever for police who commit perjury and fake evidence. The police can lock up whomever the local majority wants locked up, on fake charges, simply for being an undesirable. And they will win votes for locking up the innocent. And there is no independent institution in the executive branch at the state level to compel reporting with punishment for reporting failures like the SEC, and proactively initiate investigations into police and prosecutor misconduct. All investigations into government employees in criminal justice, all regulation, is supposed to be done by criminals and judges, who hold no real deterrent. And these only regulators, by design, have been declared illegitimate. And nobody wants to take on local governments, on behalf of people whom the paper have labeled criminals, with zero liability for libel. So there is literally no check or balance on local police absolute power. The only check is the sum of local minorities voting for the opposing party, in statewide and national elections. But when the opposing party wins, they don't address individual instances of misconduct, they let everyone out of prison. Because the families of the guilty have just as many votes as the families of those wrongly convicted based on police perjury. So there needs to be an independent SEC-like institution in the executive branch at the state level, to prosecute and deter police and prosecutors, by punishing them when they victimize the innocent.



We wouldn't be conservatives if we didn't recognize the evil nature of man, and the limits of the government utopia.

I disagree that "defund the police" cost Democrats in the 2020 election. The reason why police are hated, why reforming them caused Rep Spanberger trouble in her local election, and why hatred of the police defeated Donald Trump, are all the same reason: gerrymandering, tyranny of the local majority.

Police are loved by the local political establishment in every district, and hated by the minority. Because police are regulated by the local majority. The Mayor, or the 51% who elect the Sheriff, can overlook and even reward police perjury, to predetermine the outcome of trials, and lock up any member of the minority they want. And the local majority can reward discretion, to protect members of the local majority - the mayor's son, the corrupt donor - from prosecution.

So the local minority will always try to get relief from tyranny of the local majority, by voting for the other party in statewide and national elections. And the sum of local minorities makes a difference at the statewide and national level.

Suppose a state has 50 popular people, and 50 undesirables. Suppose there are 5 districts each with 20 people. One district has 20 undesirables. The other 4 districts each have 7 or 8.

The popular party will be so safe in their 4 districts, they will be corrupt and torture not only undesirables, but members of their own community. So the undesirables, and one or two marginalized popular people, will vote for the undesirable party at the statewide level, in each popular district.

That is 9 votes for the undesirable party, and 11 votes for the popular party, in all four popular districts. That is 36 votes, plus all 20 in the undesirable district, equals 56 votes at the statewide level. The undesirables are crushed in 80% of districts, and still win President.

Biden won Wisconsin. Biden won Pennsylvania. Biden won Arizona and Georgia. Because white people hate the police They hate Philip Brailsford, they hate Officer Rolfe. Who was rioting and punching black people in the streets? White people. Who do Republicans always point out get shot by police more than black people? White people. Who shows up to protest Ann Coulter's speeches? White people. Who lives in Portland? White people.



Given that Republicans are a bizarre cop worship cult who declare war on their fellow citizens every day, all libertarians should have voted for Biden.



People who have broken some law, driven 56mph, punched someone, had two drinks before driving, cops who fudged a sworn statement, people who carried fruit or cash past customs, are the majority. Republicans randomly declare war on their neighbors and then wonder why they lose.



Hannah, our freedoms are not taken away by senators, but by local police. And there is no gridlock in many cities and counties, to prevent police from locking up any innocent person, regardless of the law.



They do pay attention to their local elections. And they like that they can use mock trials to sweep the streets of untermenschen. And they want more of it!

It is a perfect cycle where police commit perjury in police reports and choose the most demented mugshots, local papers copy-paste it because they can't afford actual reporters and there is no libel risk. and then local people say I want the police to lie if they have to, to lock up evil menaces like that!

The demand to regulate police and prosecutors at the local level, is approximate to the demand to circumvent the Bill of Rights and the judicial grievances in the Declaration of Independence. It is normal for human beings to want to cut unaccountable juries out of the process, and have lynchings, witch trials whatever.

Your audience may be made up of rare rational idealists. But they must pursue a government that is not. Ideally, regulating police and prosecutors must be moved away from local politics, to an independent SEC-like institution at the state level.



They didn't actually defund the police. Police tried to punish neighborhoods, to show how needed they are, by refusing to do their job unless people worshipped them. After Big Mike Brown, Heather Mcdonald wrote a book "The War On Cops". Republicans took this book as a moral mandate to defend police from any allegations of misconduct, and hide and suppress all allegations of misconduct, no matter what they do. So police said unless we can do whatever we want, unless we have total immunity to victimize your neighbor and lie and say we did it in "good faith", then we refuse to do our jobs. Police want you to suffer, and want anyone who complains to suffer, as revenge for Ferguson. It is a war. The police are on one side, the citizens are on the other side. And like abusive boyfriends, police want suburban women to suffer and cry, and come running to them, and defend them and beg for them, or else they will punish you by refusing to pick up the phone. Police want you to attack your neighbors on their behalf, and frighten you of your neighbors, or they will punish you. They want to take the worst possible mugshots of your neighbors, and write the most extreme police reports, to be copy-pasted into the local paper with no liability for libel, to convince you your neighbors are rabid dogs and make you beg the police to come put down your neighbors. And your neighbors are tired of gullible people like you sending the police to victimize them. And your neighbors don't know how to get through to you to make you stop!



Thomas Jefferson complained, in the Declaration of Independence, that the King's agents were committing murder and being protected in mock trials and by sovereign immunity. Did he have a brain? Or should he have told the Inhabitants of the States to stay out of trouble, and the King's soldiers wouldn't bother them.

How about Andrew Jackson who refused to clean an officer's boots and got his face slashed. Did he have a brain? Should he have just not done criminal stuff, and they would have left him alone?

How about James Madison who, knowing the evil nature of man and the natural corruption of government, wrote the Bill of Rights to stick a hand in the face of police. Did he have a brain?

Use your brain and tell me: Do we even need a Bill of Rights, when the police can already decide who is guilty and will only bother you if you are?



People who do not like tyranny of the majority, and who do not like their family members being victimized in witch trials by police and prosecutors who pay no penalty for victimizing the innocent, are wise to not take on a naive and utopian view, of white trash idiots in uniform who are regulated by the local majority and permitted to break the law without any external check or balance.



Trump did not lose black votes. He lost white votes. Because, as you just demonstrated, Republicans are disconnected from reality. Every day Ann Coulter says "Daniel Shaver was white" or "the Portland protestors are white people punching black people." Then somehow she arrives at the crazy non sequitur, that white people want more police and that is why they voted for Biden. BLM is a movement of white people. Did you not notice the trash can lids, pool toys, and lawn equipment at the riots? It is amazing how dumb Republicans are. They will point out that the riots are all white people, and then go back to rambling about black people and saying white people want more police.

If I can cure one person... Where did I say cops are the cause of black crime, or anything about black people? I said white people don't like cops, obviously because like in every nation in history they are victimized by cops.



Do you speed? Because if you speed and you are not a cop, or even if you don't speed and a cop doesn't like how you drove, a crazy cop will plant a bag of weed on you. And if you are not the mayor's son, there is zero penalty for police lying about you, in the rare instance you can prove it. And yes police are sadists.

The angriest anyone ever got at me on here was some drunk old guy who had been a cop. He was all about the "don't break the law". Then he mentioned he used to tour Cuba, by going through the Bahamas! That's a law-abiding citizen. But because he was former military police, "don't break the law" doesn't apply to him.

Everything that is corruptible, is corrupted. Conservatives admit this about every government institution except police. And so the local political establishment always uses police to bully and victimize whomever they don't like, regardless of the law. And so the non-connected citizens of every race in every nation have always hated police.

The Founders tried to fix this. James Madison wrote an entire Bill of Rights to resist the use of police in a corrupt way. But it doesn't work, police and prosecutors just lie and say they complied with the Bill of Rights. Like a cancer, they have had 200 years to find the passages around the Bill of Rights.

But you resist the obvious which is right in front of your face.

Should we get rid of the Bill of Rights, and just have police walk up to people and say "You get 15 years"? Because if you did not commit a crime for which the penalty is 15 years, then you should not have to worry about any cop doing this to you.

I am a white person, and I see police committing perjury and victimizing the innocent my whole life, in every state I have lived in. And I talk to hundreds of white people over the years who have had the same experience, and hate police for this same reason, the same reason as everyone in history. And you have the thick skull to come here and say nobody hates police, except a small slice of criminals who are the only people who break the law.

Keep losing elections.



You are the one who is listening to a gay guy on TV to find out what white voters think. I am a poor old white Republican living in the rural South, and I am telling you what white voters think. But rather than listen to what I am saying, you are still arguing with the city guy on TV.

Do you think that first guy who Kyle Rittenhouse shot cares about black people? Do you think the guy who knocked that black guy's teeth out at Twitter cares about black people?

Not that there isn't a racial element. And it is visible right in your comment. You are obsessed with black crime. And because of your obsession, you are blinded to facts, and you support a justice system that is evil garbage and victimizes white people, who then get angry. You are inoculated against facts by "hands up don't shoot" derangement syndrome.

White Republicans who read all these Ann Coulter books, have no idea what happens in the justice system or what it actually does. Ann Coulter and Heather Mcdonald have less experience in criminal justice than Hillary Clinton has in healthcare. When Heather Mcdonald said "war on cops" what it meant it practice, is war on the only regulator of police and prosecutors in our current system, accused criminals. Which means war on ordinary citizens, white people. Heather Mcdonald declared war on white people.

You talk about exceptions, not the rule. But there is no record of 99% of police misconduct. I have seen police commit perjury in four states. I have seen police frame a girl life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen. If you didn't get it from me here, there is no public record anywhere that it ever happened. You can go down to my local police station and try to report an instance of police misconduct. They will refuse to write it down, and they will threaten to prosecute you for lying.

When you suppress statistics, of course every example someone uncovers is called anecdotal. The information is suppressed and kept in a cocoon of secrecy at the local level. This is done to enable the local political establishment to use police to do whatever they want, regardless of what actually passed the legislature or is in the Constitution.

I can tell you all day about prosecutors coercing felons to commit perjury to lock up the innocent. But there is no repository of records of it, no big data to research and have an honest debate about it. Nobody knows exactly how often it happens, or exactly how often police commit perjury. People say don't you think most people in prison are guilty? How would I know? The system is designed to make public analysis and oversight of what is going on prohibitively expensive.

But nobody actually wants to fix it. "The Innocence Project" uses it to raise money, makes a living off of it. Judges and high-end lawyers are happy that the jury trial has been hacked and corrupted. Because it has moved the locus of decision making, the decider of guilt, to the appeals court. So high-end judges and lawyers are happy that they get the glory, and they are not interested in unelected unaccountable juries any more than Republicans are.

And the rabble on the streets are really angry about all of it. They are treated like zoo animals by psychopathic cops while you rant about black teenagers.

Here is Florida's most respected Sheriff advocating to let dangerous felons out of prison, to falsely convict the innocent, to put up a mirage of successfully solving crime and win points from the gullible, crime-oriented voter:

http://seminolescam.com/justice/jury_instruction.php

If you deny that is what he is doing, you are either intellectually dishonest, you have no idea what you are talking about, or you are just too addicted to telling your gullible constituents that you are saving them from crime. That is the sign of a weak mind, a mind that lacks creativity or insight or communication skill, and just copies a political campaign out of an old Republican recipe book.

Here is a 21-year-old girl being framed for life without parole, for a crime that didn't happen, by a Florida prosecutor suborning perjury:

http://seminolescam.com/fleeing/

Here is a Florida cop lying on the witness stand with a conscious intention to trick the jury, without fear of any possible penalty:

http://seminolescam.com/sirens/

Here is a Florida cop staging evidence, without fear of any possible penalty:

http://seminolescam.com/bullet/

Here are Florida cops and prosecutors coaching witnesses to lie in a murder trial, without fear of any possible penalty:

http://seminolescam.com/witnesses/

If you deny what I am showing you, then you are lying to yourself, and you will never know why you lose an election. I guess it is no surprise that people who lie about others also lie to themselves. Self-defense from facts that cast a person in a bad light, is the first step of vanity, the deadliest sin.



Too many now make a living off guilt being decided by politicized appeals-court judges, and the click-loving media. You should instead advocate penalties for perjury, and police and prosecutor misconduct, to restore the integrity of, and the locus of decisions to, the jury trial.



Don't ever forget the people in your county who voted for the killer. After winning reelection, Wayne Ivey said "It takes a community to protect a community,' and this community understands that." That "community" does not include, and has no interest in, Gregory Edwards. Ivey has a tattoo of the Constitution. But he rules based on something that is not in the Constitution, sovereign immunity, given through the archaic rights of the King of England in common law. The Grievances of the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, were designed to stick a hand in the face of police, to be better than England. The only thing "Constitutional Conservatives" are interested in is the Second Amendment and abortion. They have no interest in due process, or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for Gregory Edwards.



High recidivism stats are stuffed with mental defectives who shout at the wall and run when police say stop. These stats are used to suggest matinee villains are getting too short sentences or whatever other false narrative.



People on here talk about shooting me at least every week



Why is it so hard to understand if you don't prosecute police for crimes like perjury, then police will be seen as criminals. Are you not interested in the 4th 5th and 6th amendments?



The 1st amendment is not your strength.



I have knowledge of tyranny of the local majority as predicted in Federalist 51. It manifests as police victimizing politically unconnected innocents for sport to captivate gullible members of the local majority faction.



The right to lie is a deal breaker for you?



They definitely don't "handcuff the police" in those places. Maybe that is why crime is so low there.



Bail has little to do with stopping crime. Cops don't get to decide guilt, or take away people's rights before trial to humor gullible housewives.



They aren't protecting them if they are free to commit perjury against them with no fear of consequence. Farmers grow your food. You still wouldn't let them victimize the innocent.



The vast majority of instances of police misconduct are ignored and hidden, and those who try to report them are threatened and smeared.



Newton recognized the universal force of gravity from seeing a single apple fall. I have seen police lie and hide misconduct in four different states, and I have heard numerous identical experiences from people all over the streets and on the web, from all over the US. Almost none of those instances are recorded anywhere that you could look them up. It is a standard outcome, a pattern reproduced by the same absence of deterrent across the country.



Cops are psychotic sadists who operate without any fear of the law, and with confidence the evil and the gullible will enable them



Every industry is attractive to different types. If I called football players athletic or basketball players tall or rocket scientists smart, would you accuse me of stereotyping?



I have two whole websites of truth about cops from actual real-life events You are free to find a single lie in either of them.



I guess they must have voted for Biden for the socialism then.



I have already seen real-life events and cops are evil scum who can victimize the innocent without consequence. Do you think these cops should face any consequence for framing this girl life without parole from age 21?

seminolescam.com



I'm not a leftist. I'm the furthest right Republican on here. I believe in law and order even for police. You don't see me blaming police perjury on global warming. I blame it on lack of lengthy prison sentences.



There is a police force to prosecute BLM and Antifa. They even sent the US military to shoot the hippie in Portland. There needs to also be an independent institution in the executive branch to prosecute police and prosecutors.



Unlike cops, if I victimized the innocent I would be prosecuted. Frame any innocent children recently?



It has nothing to do with bad seeds. When people commit murder, you don't say "there are bad seeds, doesn't mean we need police to prosecute murderers." You say "lock them up." I want to put police who victimize the innocent in prison. The foundation of our current criminal justice system is that people will do things when there is no deterrent or punishment for it, not because they are bad or irrational.



I don't want to defund police, I want to give them life without parole.



Black males are prosecuted when they commit crimes. Police in general are not prosecuted. Police and prosecutors don't just pick a cop here and there and say this one cop can get away with it. Any cop can get away with it So long as the person he victimizes is not the mayor's son.

It is not about individuals, it is about institutional processes and incentives and deterrents. All men are evil. They will all do evil when there is not sufficient deterrent. All police are not deterred.



The idea that man is inherently evil is the basis of conservative philosophy. It is reflected in the Christian idea that man is fallen, or the idea that he ate the fruit. It is reflected in Federalist 51 where James Madison says:

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

It is leftists who begin with a belief that some people are good and others are bad, and that is why there is bad in the world. Contemporary conservative philosophy holds that the behavior of individuals is created by the incentives and constraints built into systems.



Republicans have become like leftists. They begin with incorrect ideas about the human race. They then complain about the reality that is dissonant with their vision, and blame it on evil people, whom they hope to eradicate.



The whole point of the free market instead of communism, and most of the point of the death penalty, is that incentives and deterrents control behavior. Reagan used to talk about police not needing guns in Britain, because hanging anyone who had a gun was a deterrent to any citizens having guns. Adam Smith said the baker bakes bread for me not because he is generous, but because he is greedy. Thomas Sowell says institutions are self-interested to promote their own survival over their advertised mission. One cannot remove survival as a short-run local incentive, because those who pursue it will grow in number relative to those who don't.

I am beginning to see Republicans are doing more than just worshiping lying cops who victimize the innocent, contrary to the intention of most of our founding documents. The whole party has lost its ideological core. That may be a result of populism plus pandering. Rather than leading the common man, you poll for the dumbest most popular ideas, and claim to support them.

I knew this election was lost as a result of vanity. Vanity works psychologically to insulate a person from reality. Republicans cannot see that the justice system they support reflexively is evil and corrupt, is run contrary to the intention of our nations's founding, as in in fact hated by a large part of their base.

But the extent to which Republicans have become like liberals is stunning. Liberals see the world as good actors, evil actors, and objects both good and bad. To them, dolphins are good actors, Republicans are evil actors, black people and trees are good objects, guns are bad objects. LIb leaders are cartoon superheroes. Now Republicans have adopted this same cosmology, where they are consumed and blinded by the vanity of their own goodness, and the evil of their opponent.

It was not always so. In "The Vision of the Anointed" Sowell claims political debate was asymmetric for 200 years, with the left thinking the right is evil, and the right thinking the left is well-intentioned but stupid.



Police don't want to lock up 100% of the local people, based on what a 51% statewide majority wants. But police who are willing to lock up 49% of the local people, is still tyranny of the local majority.

Are you a libertarian?



Step four is to take mushrooms, worship satan, get an abortion, and drive 100 mph.



Cops enforce the laws I vote on, or what the Governor I vote for has authority to order, within the limits of the Constitution. Cops work for the laws of the state. Otherwise, people vote for Joe Biden, which you do not like.



If my votes decide the law and my taxes go to prosecution and lockup and they are citizens of my country, cops need my consent.



Say hello to the USDOJ.



Power corrupts, and the local police are corrupt. I will say it at my next voting booth.



Millions of voters care that local police and prosecutors victimize the innocent. Just because they are not prosecuted, doesn't mean police and prosecutors aren't breaking the law.



How do you save people who like to fight and lose?

Republicans: We are kicking criminals' asses and worshipping police. Everybody loves that.

Me: You are getting beat by a half-dead socialist who wants to take your guns away.

Why Republicans Lose Elections

Ann Coulter recently celebrated mass incarceration on Twitter, saying it was the flip side of the coin of a reduction in violent crime. This is the same Ann Coulter who hammers how every anchor baby brings two family members who vote Democrat, and it is literally the end of America.

Every person in prison has two family members who vote for Democrat nihilist judges. If 2 million people have been incarcerated for extended periods, that is 6 million people voting Democrat. Hello Obamacare. Goodbye to Ronald Reagan ever winning Governor in California. Three strikes, and Republicans are out.

Conservatives imagine the same belief system which rejects Bernie Sanders and gay marriage, includes an irrational desire for their sons to get murdered. And that is why black voters prefer Democrat criminal justice policies. These are the same conservatives who themselves prefer small government, and armed homeowners over a police state.

The problem with mandatory minimums for drug crimes, is they are literally the easiest crime to convict an innocent person. Most of the evidence and testimony in drug crimes, is controlled by drug users and dealers. If two drug dealers say the drugs belong to this innocent third person, they are empowered to take an innocent person's life.

People serving 30 years for drugs all say they are wrongly convicted. There is literally no scientific way to say if the true number is 1% or 50%. And there is no DNA to come along years later and exonerate an innocent person convicted of a drug crime. The only hope is Democrat judges who will burn it down and let everyone out of prison.

Even murder, all it takes is one witness to lie and identify an innocent person. And one policeman to delete five seconds of video, to save himself embarrassment from arresting the wrong person, or being called a racist and having his life ruined. You don't think it happens? Based on what? How do you know that doesn't happen?

Have you or someone you know ever been charged with murder? Have you ever sat through a murder trial, or obtained all the discovery in a murder trial, or even all the trial exhibits in a murder trial? Have you ever even read a law book? No. You believe what you believe based on no evidence or experience of your own, but based on religion. Like global warming.

What is the penalty for a policeman who hides a witness name, or deletes five seconds of video, or even lies on the stand? It's nothing. The penalty is on you, when the taxpayer has to spend money for 10 years of appeals, or when a judge finally lets a criminal out. The policeman who lies, or the prosecutor who suborns perjury, are like Al Gore. There is no controlling legal authority. The penalty is on you, when Democrats get elected.

I bought a new motorcycle, and went to show it off to my black friend who works in the city. He came out and looked at the motorcycle, and suddenly ran away. I went over to where he was, and he pointed out there was a once-inch ziplock bag lying on the ground where we had been standing. As is often the case in the city. He explained if a black guy comes out and meets a white guy at the curb and there is a ziplock bag at his feet, he is going to get picked up for dealing. They may even plant a bag on me like a policeman did to my friend in Denver. You can call me a liar, but you can't stop my black friend from voting to let everyone out of jail.

It is very easy when people are all packed into a neighborhood, to say the shots came from this window or that window, or the gun was found in this person's bedroom or that person's kitchen. So it is very easy to go through fifteen years of you and your whole family having your lives ruined, for something you didn't do. But the real numbers of people who believe the system is not just and vote Democrat, are manufactured by drug sentences.

Hey roommate, Joe is coming to grab something I left for him in the kitchen, can you let him in? Joe overdoses on opiates, you get a life sentence for opening a door. Joe killed himself. Republicans' reaction is to give the guy who opened the door life, and their favorite Republican candidate untold numbers of lifelong Democrats to fundraise and compete against. For Joe, who killed himself.

Even without any of that, a jury will convict 5% of people totally at random. Even if the prosecution just sings "The Sound of Music." Just because the person was accused and is wearing a jumpsuit, and there is some blood or contraband. If the defendant is an undesirable person, from a neighborhood where drugs are mainstream, the number goes up to 15%. 15% of those defendants will get convicted at random and get mandatory sentences, regardless of guilt, evidence, or reasonable doubt. I know, you think thousands of voters are nuts for electing Nancy Pelosi. But those same voters suddenly become sensible when they get called in for jury duty. Jurors are a demonic mob.

A black person in a high-crime area who doesn't want to get shot can stay home at night. A black person in a high-crime area who doesn't want to die from crack or heroin, can just say no. But what can a black person do to save himself from being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and getting picked up for a shooting that happened a block away, and spending the next 25 years fighting it because someone said he looked like the shooter?

So black people are rational to reject Republican policies which send a police state into their neighborhood, remove discretion from judges, and insulate police and prosecutors from any penalty for misconduct. They would rather take personal responsibility. They would rather their fate is in their own hands.

You don't believe anybody is falsely convicted, or that any sentencing policies are literally unjust. Nobody bothers telling you, they just vote Democrat, do you believe that? Do you believe Andrew Gillum came within .4 percent of becoming Governor of Florida? Those black people voting Democrat are just irrational.



I don't like this article because, in short, it is written by a leftist. And leftists solutions are always about how people feel, e.g. "deprogramming" and "rethinking" rather than permanent structural change. This would be like persuading Mexican people not to come to the US, versus building a wall. This is the idea of an "enlightened dictator" rather than checks and balances and democratic elections. Prosecutors need an institution to investigate them and send them to prison, not to be rehabilitated and enlightened with love.

I was visiting with a local Republican businessman several months ago, who had the same experience as me with a nutcase local cop who hallucinated crimes, invented probable cause, and wanted to search every vehicle. His psychological understanding of police behavior was something beautiful. He explained how cops in different situations were driven by emotion and attitude. Then he said he thought cops who lie should be shot. I agreed that there needs to be some deterrent to police perjury. But to me, an occasional person who actually has the moral compulsion to shoot a lying cop, was not likely to be a robust institutional regulator.

The ACLU's belief that institutional behavior can be changed by changing minds rather than by changing checks and balances, and laws, is sort of like the "white supremacy" they are fighting. White supremacists believe some people are simply bad, and need to be cleansed off the streets. The ACLU believes some prosecutors are bad, and need to be replaced with good prosecutors. Like shooting police who lie, this is a never-ending propaganda battle every election. Whereas simple legal and institutional changes like removing qualified immunity, or even just requiring police and prosecutors be investigated by an outside entity, rather than their own station or The Bar, can almost effortlessly and permanently adjust institutional behavior.

If you were to simply create an independent institution at the state level to compel reporting like the SEC, and deter prosecutors by locking up those who use lies or victimize the innocent, you would change prosecutor behavior the right-wing Republican way: By locking up bad actors. I don't doubt the lawyers at the ACLU are as opposed to actual regulation and punishment of lawyers as prosecutors are. And of course if you fixed 90% of police and prosecutor misconduct in one legislative session by forming the "Police and Prosecution Commission" as an adversarial independent reporting and investigative body, you would put the ACLU put of business.

If we fixed the problem through legislation and structural changes, then what role for the ACLU? The ACLU is perhaps like dermatologists. They don't want your skin to get better, they want to treat it year in and year out. And use injustice to raise money and elect Democrats, to perpetuate the whole financing machine.

It is a bit shocking to see Newt Gingrich trapped outside reality like a fly in a jar.



Biden bumped up a touch after his speech. But for the most part, the polls are stuck. The majority of people are seeing something Gingrich is missing.

Unfortunately, everything from the last three years has been partially eclipsed by unusual recent events. I don't know how the virus might create distaste for an incumbent. But Republicans added an issue they didn't have to, pushing all their chips into the table on criminal justice like it is 1985. Today's Republicans know nothing about this issue except what they recite from 30 years ago, and hands up don't shoot derangement syndrome. They are playing a pair of eights like a pair of jacks. This election was supposed to be about socialism, a dud for Democrats. They changed the subject and Republicans went crazy, and it is working perfectly for Democrats. And nobody can stop Republicans from trotting out this fossil Gingrich to serve the koolaid.



By refusing to offer a product to fix the justice system, you give a monopoly to insane people.

How are Republicans getting beat by an insane corpse? It is because they are captive to a cop-worship cult that is inoculated against reality. It is insane to watch Republicans trapped outside reality when the Democrats are poised to wipe them off the map.

Ever since hands up don't shoot, Republicans have been deprived of any ability to rationally analyze justice policy, or to avoid political suicide supporting police who victimize the innocent.

Here is a cop staging a bullet in a murder case:

seminolescam.com/bullet

Because of hands up don't shoot, you have lost your mind. You are incapable of saying that cop should be punished for staging that evidence to manufacture a shot-while-fleeing narrative.

Should that cop be punished for staging that bullet?

In a democracy, can a political party survive which supports police in the crime of perjury?



That political party can not only survive, but win. Because Republicans have no clue what is happening to them. Republicans are being framed with nonsense. You really think your fellow man is that irrational? They will say any charge they have to, to get rid of these crooked police. Until you punish police and prosecutors for misconduct, people who blame it on global warming, or on helium ions, will tap into a sentiment and win elections. It doesn't matter if they say it is because of racism or intergenerational trauma. As long as police and prosecutors can victimize the innocent without consequence, anybody who admits it is happening, will win an election against someone who denies it is happening.

Democrats are surfing on a flawed justice system which Republicans refuse to fix. Democrats like that the justice system is flawed, so they can use it to accuse Republicans of racism every election cycle. I have been saying this since last year. The justice system has problems. As long as they are there, Democrats will use the problems to successfully accuse Republicans of racism, and win elections.

But the current movement is not even a movement of black people. It is a movement of white people, while black people get shot. It is white people, who hate the police for crooked behavior, using the a false accusation of racism to beat Republicans over the head. And Republicans are sitting there clueless "There is no such thing as systemic racism. So why are we about to lose an election? It makes no sense!"

It is because hands up don't shoot that Republicans are distracted by the fake racism thing. We're not racists! And unless you figure out what is going on, you will lose all your offices and get wiped out.

It is like a broken dam with water just gushing through it. As long as police and prosecutors victimize the innocent without consequence, Democrats will use it to destroy everything. They will destroy the universities. They will implement marxism. They will burn down the suburbs, and not suffer any drop in the polls until they nominate a prosecutor as VP.

Here is a cop lying under oath without consequence:

seminolescam.com/sirens

It is just sitting there festering. Until you fix it, it will drive people mad and they will vote for anything!



It is sad that instead of connecting the dots with solid arguments, people who disagree with me just tell me I am crazy. I agree that plea bargaining is flawed. It is a symptom of the weakness of actual criminal evidence, against the demand to lock up undesirables, and the randomness of the jury process.

But let's do some quick math. Suppose 2 million people are in prison right now in the US. Suppose over 20 years, that is 5 million people who are locked up for an extended period of time. Suppose they each bring an additional two or three family members or sympathizers, who are also chained to a relative or loved one in prison.

That is now 15 million people voting for nihilist judges who will let everyone out. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million. Andrew Gillum lost by 0.4% in Florida.

Do you have a plan B, one that is compatible with democracy?

While we are at it, here is a cop lying under oath in a murder trial:

seminolescam.com/sirens

Do you think that cop should be punished for committing that crime (like suggested in the 10 Commandments and the Stela of Hammurabi)?

Do you think a political party that supports police in the crime of perjury, can survive in a democracy?

Is it lunacy, to suggest that cops who lie under oath in a murder trial (as is forbidden by the 10 Commandments and the Stela of Hammurabi) should go to prison?

How about if punishing cops who break the law, and punishing prosecutors who victimize the innocent, would save the country from Democrats getting elected? Is it crazy to advocate for policies that will not only increase justice, but help Republicans win elections and save the country?

How about Republican fossils reciting law-and-order talking points from the 1970's, when Republicans were fighting a completely different fight against the "rehabilitation" and "root causes" philosophy? Is it lunacy for Republicans to fight yesterday's battle, when it hasn't moved the polls and if anything is costing them support?



At least the global warming people have fake science. Your 99.99% number is based on no science, it is completely invented. How many felony convictions nationwide in the last six months used the coerced testimony of felons? You have no idea. How many times were police accused of perjury in Seminole County Florida in the past year? You have no idea. You don't want to write down and report those numbers, with penalties for reporting failures. You want to keep the data that would enable us to have an honest debate hidden and obfuscated, in a cocoon of secrecy at the local level.

You say the more handcuffed the cops are, the more crime there is. Do you think the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights to handcuff police because they like criminals getting away with it? One of their Grievances in the Declaration of Independence was murderers were getting away with it. Thomas Jefferson wanted to drill a hole through a girl's nose for licking poon. And yet they demanded the Bill of Rights to handcuff police, it was a deal breaker. Why? Because they were like Jesus at the Passover festival, they knew what was in men, from history.

In the USSR, police had absolute power. And yet serial killer Andrei Chikatilo was able to murder 56 people, while those idiots put on a charade of solving crime. They killed innocent after innocent for his crimes, while Chikatilo ran free. Why? Because every product needs standards. Every product, including policing, will be delivered in the cheapest, garbage way that meets the measure, like watered stock. They will frame incompetents, and tell you they are heroes catching murderers. It is not the exception, it is the human condition throughout history. It is the historic standard of mock trials to which everyone gravitates without great vigilance.

You look at other countries right now where there is no Bill of Rights, crime and corruption are way higher. These countries run by dictators with secret police, or Russia, there is plenty of crime. Giving police more power does not solve crime, it increases the corruption of the justice system.



City Journal comments is populated by lying idiots? Who would have guessed. Your original 99.99% quote had nothing to do with people not killed in traffic stops (LOL), it was "in 99.99% of cases, people who go to prison BELONG in prison. They all did something truly criminal."

Of course if police could hide a dead body or cover up a missing person better, they would do more of it. So instead they do more of what they can hide and cover up: Perjury, and losing and altering evidence. You admit police have been successful in hiding almost all statistics except body count.

The "overwhelming majority" killed by police that were "justified" probably did not have body cameras. I am sure killing Elijah McClain was "justified". But that does not mean insane Republicans can win elections with those justifications.

In the grand scheme of things, you have no independent scientific analyses on which you can base any estimate of the number of innocent in prison. What percentage of jailhouse confession witnesses do you capriciously *imagine* told the truth?

How can you ever tell if police are lying, except by having no other explanation for Andrew Gillum coming within 0.4%? I have solid evidence of police lying. Other than my website, there is no record of it anywhere. And I have seen police lie many other times in four states, and there is no record of it anywhere.



This guy told me that 99.99% of people in prison "did something truly criminal." He then claimed to show he was correct, by dividing the number of people killed by police in one year, over the number of people who had contact with police in another year.

How would you respond to someone wasting your time throwing garbage in your face like that?

If you don't like anecdotal evidence, do you support a new independent institution in the executive branch to require reporting, and punish reporting failures like the SEC, of every time a cop is accused of perjury, every time a felon testifies, and so on? Or do you just want to whine about my screen name because you don't think cops who break the law and victimize the innocent should go to prison?

Do you think this cop who staged this bullet or this cop who lied should go to prison?

seminolescam.com/bullet

seminolescam.com/sirens

Or is that irrational?

I have not seen any more rational arguments anywhere, than the arguments I have presented about justice policy, at this website.

My arguments are based on the rational principles of economists and philosophers like James Madison, Thomas Sowell, Friedrich Hayek, Adam Smith, and Edmund Burke.

Anyone is free to visit my web site, and make a rational counter-argument to any argument I have made there. I suspect what you really don't like, is that you cannot form any rational counter-arguments. And so you just whine about my screen name. And call my examples "anecdotal", while doing everything you can to support people who keep events in the justice system obfuscated and hidden in a cocoon of secrecy at the local level, where it is taboo to even write down most instances of police misconduct.

And then you have the sick dishonesty to complain that evidence is incomplete, of things that are intentionally hidden and obfuscated. Instead of demanding that all police and prosecutor activity be exposed to the sunshine so we can have an honest debate, which you do not want.



I rarely go more than a few paragraphs without paraphrasing Sowell. I will offer one of several examples on the front page of my web site.

I wrote "I don't hope to convince people my morals are better than their morals." This is taken from Sowell's discussion of polemics and political debate at the beginning of "Vision of the Anointed." Sowell says "People are never more sincere than when they presume their own moral superiority."

Sowell's word from "the anointed versus the benighted" even passes through to the title of an episode of a podcast, based on my true crime novel.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/0201-uniquely-benighted-white-trash-lowlifes/id1510180413?i=1000490728343

Sowell explains human behavior based on the incentives and deterrents facing individuals in systems and institutions. He further discusses regulation and monitoring, and the corruption of institutions. And he analyzes different political processes as knowledge processes providing feedback to decision makers.

So I begin by describing a corrupted knowledge process and decision institution where police commit perjury without any deterrent. And I go on to investigate the political and regulatory processes, and voter feedback mechanisms, which produce this outcome.

I further predict that a backlash against tyranny of the majority in criminal justice regulated at the local level, will cause a party that aligns with this corrupt system to lose at the national level.

It is all based on the work of Sowell, and an analysis of our present institutions and the Founders' design, experience, and insight.



You shouldn't. It is not your job. There needs to be a new independent institution in the executive branch to investigate and prosecute police and prosecutors, and punish them to deter perjury.



I liken myself more to Isaac Newton, who was inspired by a single falling apple, to recognize the universal force of gravity. I believe that behavior is dictated by the incentives and deterrents built into systems, so that the same incentives will lead to the same outcomes, everywhere it is tried. I hold the tragic, fallen view of the nature of man, where man will do evil, any time he has any prospect to gain anything by it. There exists no institution in government to deter and punish criminal conduct by police and prosecutors, that is not captive to the same political forces the police and prosecutors themselves, and also the local judges, are captive to. And the local political establishment will reward police who fake evidence to predetermine the outcome of trials, to create a show of locking up whatever class of undesirables the local political majority or mob wants locked up.

These conditions and human nature, gravitate to the same phenomenon of mock trials everywhere in history and geography. I talk to people the next county over, and find out the same things are going on. Or I read the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, and realize our Founders were wary of the same types of "corruption", from their experience hundreds of years ago in a different country. Do you think the Founders had an irrational paranoia, thinking an entire nation would need checks on the natural corruption of the justice system? Do you think they were wrong to project their experience with justice in Britain, the Colonies, and elsewhere, onto the future police of the United States of America?

Would you advocate repealing the right to a jury trial, and the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments? Because no policeman would ever coerce someone in custody to make misleading statements? And no policeman would ever lock someone up, and deprive him of the means to discover and establish the truth and clear his name? Or do you acknowledge that, like our Founders believed, the police and the people will violate every Amendment in the Bill of Rights given the chance? Everywhere throughout history the laws of force have been equal, and used against the commoners by the political establishment, where their soldiers are above the law and answer only to local daimyos. Sensible people would fight and die, to avoid living under a Constitution conceived by your hero Stanovich.



You are missing the big picture. You are standing up for the right of police to shoot a guy in the back, 1000 miles away, involving some people you don't care about. If you lose the argument, you get Joe BIden, and socialism in your neighborhood. Democrats are tricking Republicans to fight an unpopular position in the mud, while socialism stands on the sidelines in a clean suit laughing. If Republicans don't gain in the polls in Wisconsin, and if they instead lose ground in the polls, will you agree to stop your handsupdontshoot derangementsyndrome?



You want to bet on the Wisconsin polls moving toward Trump in the next week?



I promise you if I shoot someone with a history of assaulting people, the police will lock me up punishable by death, leave half the evidence on the ground, and go for donuts. But I know, police are a Japanese overclass.

My friend's boyfriend shot someone in the leg who has a history of rape, domestic battery, racketeering, prostitution, cocaine, prescription drug abuse. None of that was admissible at trial. On the contrary, police coached the witnesses to lie, and describe a completely invented person, who gave anonymous gifts to strangers. My friend's boyfriend got life without parole from age 30, based on an invented story of a crime that never actually happened.

Here is an example of police staging evidence in that case:

seminolescam.com/bullet

Do you think that cop should be punished for faking that bullet hole?

No, because you are a sick member of a cop-worship cult.



A history of loaded weapons is half the people in this comment section. Hogs move quickly. Given the number of dead hogs on the side of the road by my house, I am pretty sure it is common in my area for people to have loaded guns in their vehicle. Though it may be primarily people who have connections with the local sheriff, who get to enjoy their Second Amendment rights.



You missed the whole Bill of Rights. This guy is being tried in the comment section after he was shot in the street. You are accusing him of a technical crime - felon in possession - but I don't see a jury here.



Who, whom? (Russian: kto kovo?) is a Bolshevist principle or slogan which was formulated by Lenin in 1921.

Lenin is supposed to have stated at the second All-Russian Congress of Political Education Departments, on 17 October 1921, "The whole question is - who will overtake whom?"



That is a real policy preference and, unfortunately, an election loser.



"Hang 'Em High" Lynched or Judged



Shaun King does not care about black lives, he cares about destroying Republicans and instituting socialism. If Republicans are losing on this issue, and this issue is the one that will enable him to get socialism through, then he will push all his chips into the table on this issue. And Republicans will not just call but raise him, and lose the country. Over some idiots 1,000 miles away that were not even an issue a few months ago.

It saddens me, because I live in the middle of nowhere with spotty cell coverage. I need my guns to protect myself from hogs and gators and the crazy people who live in the woods eating rabbits they kill themselves. If the Republicans make this election about bail in New York, they have about as good odds as a Republican in New York. This is not 1985, it is a different set of issues. And then Beto will come take my guns away, and leave me defenseless.



Remember that scene in "Rounders" where Matt Damon "lays down a monster"? Republicans need to walk away from the justice and police issues, and put their chips on big winners that the Democrats are deranged about.



Republicans keep running the old West Coast Offense, Democrats will keep running the zone blitz.



She did win by 2.8 million votes. You are very comfortable with Andrew Gillum losing by 0.4%, or Stacey Abrams almost winning in Georgia. Remember these are COMMUNISTS WHO WANT TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY. And you are lucky to beat them half the time, and currently you are down in the polls.



Orange County used to be Republican. You remember Bob Dornan? Then they made paying felons to lie against innocents the primary business at the county jail. And Republicans got swept into the ocean. Kind of like New York. You remember Giuliani, D'Amato? Then police made planting drugs on suspects standard operating procedure, and New York became a sovereign district for prosecuting Republicans.

I am reminded of what Tommie Angelo once said to a poker player who had his money rolled in a rubber band: Can I have that rubber band when you are done with it?



Pigs will fly before any Republican condemns police for lying and faking evidence to victimize the innocent.

Here is a cop lying at a murder trial:

seminolescam.com/sirens

Crickets...



Unlike most people who just stand in a mob and parrot everything the newspapers get from the cops, I looked at the actual evidence. And once I did, the office of the local state attorney began a criminal conspiracy to break public records laws, going so far as to cite case law in a phony way to trick the court clerk to hide records.

Unlike rubes such as Daniel Horowitz and Ann Coulter, I not only got all the discovery I could before the prosecutor figured out what I was doing, I actually sat through every minute of two murder trials with every kind of lying you never imagined, including jailhouse confession so-called witnesses.

Everything I saw was a sick scam. And idiots on this web site ask questions like "Wow, how is it really possible to have any clue about a criminal case before opening your mouth?"



If every person who is charged with a crime has lied and hurt someone, then you should campaign for a Constitutional amendment to get rid of jury trials. And we can just have the police check the "[x] life sentence" box on the police report, and get a parade.

What percentage of police who lie and hurt is there even a written record of what they have done, much less any punishment for it? Are you not in favor of punishing police who victimize the innocent? You are not.



Exactly.



If that is the only time it ever happened, it should be so shocking that you would investigate and complain. But since it happens so often, because it is as common as rain, you won't even visit the link. There will be no punishment for that cop who committed perjury, and you don't want there to be.

There would be no record like the record at my link, if I didn't make the record. The other hundred thousand examples, police also refuse to write down a record of. You have a sick scam, where police refuse to write down complaints of misconduct. So unless there is a video of someone dying, cops deny it even happened.

People are really tired of sick liars who make a big business of covering up and obfuscating cops committing perjury and tampering evidence and victimizing the innocent. They are at the point where they will vote for socialists in a vain hope to stop people like you from putting up a fraud.

Do you support an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to require reports and punish reporting failures like the SEC, of every time a cop is accused of perjury? Or do you want to keep lying about how common it is, and preventing an honest debate of the crooked corrupt garbage product the cop-worship cult feeds us?



The Declaration of Independence and most of the Bill of Rights is designed to put a hand in the face of dumb evil cops. But there is this new cop-worship cult who thinks being American is defined as evil idiots committing perjury and brutality to victimize the innocent.



Police are employees. The consent for them to shoot ends when and where the public says it ends. If at that instant they hide and obfuscate, they are criminals and murderers.



Police know they will never be held to any standard of conduct when they frame someone who has a past drug arrest. In fact they will be celebrated. Even if, as in the case of my friend, the past arrest was a false accusation, where the crime lab said the suspicious liquid was not what they thought it was. So they literally frame innocents, over and over, as like a carnival business. Like any other business, it is just a hustle, where they deliver the cheapest product possible that they can dress up to trick the customer. And the magoo idiots who support them, are as addicted to it as anybody who is addicted to a fake supplement or snake oil cure, and will squeal if you take it away.



They don't emphasize a Bill of Rights in Somalia. But I don't go for this idea that the product can't be criticized, that we have to eat rotten food or starve, that cops don't go to prison when they victimize the innocent, that they refuse to write down or report accusations of misconduct and then claim it is rare. I have seen cops lie in four states. Nobody ever says maybe there needs to be a deterrent. They call me a communist, or tell me to imagine an imaginary world without cops. I'm still not persuaded cops should not be deterred from lying!

Ever since hands up don't shoot, all police misconduct is defended by an army of liars. The result at the end of it, will be Joe Biden getting elected. Republicans either don't know there is this lying game going on, or think playing the lying game - government vs. citizen - is a viable strategy to win elections in a democracy.



It is actually a great case, that hits near the center of the movement. The problem everywhere in history (which our Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights were written to address), is that police misconduct and mock trials are overlooked, in fact encouraged, when used against a class of people who are considered undesirable.

Person has a past drug arrest? It is okay for police to frame that person for life in prison. It is rewarded. Ann Coulter says "people with past drug arrests are more likely to be charged with violent crimes, than people with past violent crime arrests." Yes, because drug people can be threatened with life sentences to coerce them to commit perjury, to convict other drug people of crimes that never happened. And no cop will ever face any consequences, for committing perjury to frame someone with a past drug arrest.

Example at this website seminolescam.com

People at City Journal fight to protect a policy of never writing down, or requiring a census, of allegations of police misconduct, or police committing perjury. And then they are so crooked as to paint all examples as rare or anecdotal.



You don't see a problem with police being used as their personal army by one side of the national political debate? Or in other times and places, by the other side? Today's movement is essentially a movement that says police should not be rewarded for shooting, or framing, anyone with a past arrest. And someone who calls basketball players "whining neanderthals" and "circus rejects" is the one doing the rewarding, at the ballot box, of police who victimize the innocent.



So police should have no deterrent or punishment for lying and victimizing the innocent, or even a written record of it, because some demographic has a higher incidence of what? Because something has been done to black women? The agenda to expose and punish police for misconduct is an attack on black women? Are you sure it doesn't have something to do with global warming? Is there any other reason you can give me to disdain the Bill of Rights, like every violent idiot in human history, for the greater good?



Give me a link to a screen grab or an image where "he is shown holding a knife." Sounds like the fat blue lie to me. Now people are having evidence planted on them a week later on the internet.



That is the fat blue lie. Police lie. If you point to it, it is like the emperor's new clothes, you must be crazy to not see them.

Here is a cop lying on the stand in a murder trial:

seminolescam.com/sirens

Quick, look the other way!



A man getting into a car is not "running." The police were accompanying, not "racing." Even "out of control" is an idiom which you are misusing. Blake was not under control, but he did not fully fit the common meaning of "out of control." With Blake facing away from him and getting into a car, the cop was not immediately threatened, nothing was imminent to happen, that demanded that cop kill him, with no time left to do anything else safely. You are another example of the fat blue lie, which is as stubborn as the bat virus.



OMG, so this is like a late-term abortion thing? A cop can go up on the stand, and tell straight lies to lock up an innocent female for life without parole from age 21, just like this?

seminolescam.com/sirens

seminolescam.com/bullet

seminolescam.com/fleeing

But punishing that sick evil cop for lying to take that young girl's life, would be an attack on women's bodies?

I know, police were supposed to only be lying about black males, right? Then it would be okay. Perjury about black males is good, because the existence of black males (who escape abortion) is a threat to the bodies of black females.

What about Uyghur males? They must be doing something bad, like fgm, that we need to look the other way on any lying necessary to round them up. LeBron is right to look the other way on Chinese rounding up Uyghurs, because I am sure they are some kind of violent medieval misogynistic paternalists.

Back to the police lying, exactly whom should police be given a free pass to lie about? Black males? All males? All males with a past accusation of domestic violence can be framed for life? Because protecting the Bill of Rights of people with domestic violence accusations would be violence to women?



I judge an entire profession by the absence of, and opposition to, any deterrent or punishment for what is legally misconduct. Others judge that entire profession by their ability to ignore the law, to lock up people who "lie down with dogs", even when the people locked up don't break any actual law that could pass the legislature.

I am also sick of self-important scumbags who threaten me "if you don't like being served rotten cops, try starving." Kind of a post office/dmv argument.



Police aren't punished for individual instances of misconduct. Collective punishment is the designed paradigm.



Here is a cop lying under oath at a murder trial:

seminolescam.com/sirens

Here are cops and prosecutors supervising witnesses to lie:

seminolescam.com/fleeing

seminolescam.com/witnesses

Here is a cop staging a bullet to create a false narrative:

seminolescam.com/bullet

I have much more like that. What punishment has any of these people received???? NO PUNISHMENT.

You will say it is rare, when it fact it is at all times hidden and obfuscated. If I didn't make the record at those links, there would be no record. I have seen cops lie in four states. If I give you my name, will you be able to look up even one of those instances? No. So don't tell me it's rare. It's not recorded, and then liars lie and pretend it is rare.



Everything, even his pension!?!?!! Are you f'n sick? My friend lost her entire life, locked in prison and being taken advantage of by sociopaths all day, without parole from the age of 21, for a crime that didn't happen! Because a cop lied! She was held without bond for three years before even going to trial, sedated in isolation, and intentionally tortured in ways I won't go into! Taken from her family! I alone have spent and lost five times because of it, what your criminal friend ever hoped to receive in his lousy pension. Not to mention the taxpayer who will spend 100's of times what your crook friend lost in his lousy pension. And her family, their whole lives ruined. Because a cop lied and faked evidence, Detective Benjamin Sprague of the Altamonte Springs Police Department. Plus Alison Smolarek and Jackson Athaide. And prosecutors Lori "cankles" Sacco and Stewart Stone who lied at trial, supervised witnesses to lie, and coerced felons to lie, AND PAY NO PENALTY FOR IT WHATSOEVER. I had a close friend who was a cop who beat someone to death. He had to find a new job, so he started a business and sold it for millions. Tough break!



When doctors murder, they are investigated and prosecuted. Without thousands of people having to march in the street demanding it.

I believe that behavior is dictated by the incentives and deterrents built into systems, not by the good and bad people in those systems. I hold the tragic, fallen view of the nature of man, where man will do evil, any time he has any prospect to gain anything by it. I see that police pay no price whatsoever for faking evidence, lying on the stand, and hiding witnesses, and a prosecutor gets no penalty for lying, and supervising perjury, in a murder case. So it is not one prosecutor, or one case. It is a system which incentivizes, and does not deter, evil behavior.

I judge the entire law-enforcement profession by the absence of, and opposition to, any deterrent or punishment for what is legally misconduct. Others judge and reward that entire profession for their ability to ignore the law to lock up undesirables, even when the people locked up don't break any actual law that could pass the legislature. Some people can't get the laws they want passed in the legislature. So they want their local cops to be free to break the law, to do what they demand even when it is contrary to state and federal law. The mob demands cops break the rules.

Human nature is for the 51% majority to dance in the streets, to torture and lock up whatever class of undesirables they don't like, with mock trials or no trials. The Bill of Rights is designed to limit that human nature. Laws and political checks and balances are designed to channel and confine and deter human nature. But police and people who support them, whine all day that their human nature must be allowed to run free, and attack the people they don't like, without exposing their activities to proper regulation.

Sellers of travel, people who braid hair, medical doctors, are all regulated at the state level. People who sell stock, and insurance brokers, are required to submit standardized quarterly reports and special event reports of all their relevant activities. But unlike other professions, police refuse to be monitored and regulated by an independent institution at the state level for that specialized purpose, and refuse to be compelled under threat of punishment, to report all activities and events for public scrutiny.

Cops and their supporters, more than anyone, want to get away with the evils of being human.



You are the one who whines that a cop you are close to who is convicted of a crime has trouble making money as a cop. But you are telling me that since I observe crimes go unpunished, and I don't like it, I am unable to be objective and think rationally? How about all these whining idiots who complain about police being shot, admit that they don't like police being shot, and they are therefore unable to be objective or think rationally! How about this whiner Nolte who is not affected by crime in New York City, stop grinding his axe about it? Nolte says he bought a gun because of current events? Obviously he is too invested in current events, he has an emotional position, so he is unable to be objective or think rationally about them.

Slimeball cops and their supporters will say ANYTHING other than yes, that cop who committed a crime should go to prison. Should this cop who lied under oath at a murder trial face punishment?

seminolescam.com/sirens

Let's start with simple questions: Did that cop lie? Is lying at a trial a crime? Is lying in a police report a crime? Do those crimes victimize the innocent? Should there be some penalty, some deterrent, for committing crimes that victimize the innocent? All I expect from evil cops and their supporters is to tell me that I am crazy, for suggesting people who victimize the innocent should be punished! Never once do they admit someone should look into that, or admit that there is any misconduct that isn't written down, or agree to make better records or have independent investigators, or admit that the product can be improved in any way. All cops do is what common criminals do: deny, deny, deny, deny, and tell you that you are crazy for accusing them of a crime. Not only cops, but people who participate in the criminal conspiracy to enable and cover up their behavior - meaning YOU - need to go to prison.

Yours is an entire profession of psychopaths and sociopaths who will victimize the innocent, and then deny it and tell anyone who complains that they are crazy. You say it is one bad apple here and there. But the entire profession is in a criminal conspiracy to cover up every bad apple. And the entire profession is in a psychological state of war to deny it.



There is one guy here who believes black males should get life without a trial for being accused of domestic battery. But since he knows that could never pass the legislative process, he asks police to achieve the same effect through whatever means necessary. And he promises to look the other way.



You are very close to getting the idea. Right now cops have a free pass to frame people who have past drug arrests. But it gets to a point where it is so many people, that it can tip elections and you can't do it any more. There are so many people who have been accused of domestic battery or whatever, that you have to protect their Bill of Rights. It becomes too many people to lock them all in prison and assume their families and sympathizers don't vote. So this idea that a person accused of xyz, an undesirable, has no rights, is en election loser.



I want an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to require reporting and punish reporting failures like the SEC, of every time a cop is accused of perjury, every time a felon testifies, and other detailed information which will enable citizens in a democracy to fulfill their responsibility to scrutinize and regulate the punishment of their fellow citizens in each county. And I want that institution to have a mandate to proactively initiate investigations into police and prosecutors for sport, like every other type of law enforcement, and without investigations needing to be initiated by criminals, prosecuted by the mob, and tried at the ballot box in another jurisdiction, in an irrational and haphazard way. That will create a deterrent to police and prosecutors victimizing the innocent, which voters can monitor, without having to vote for socialist nihilists who let everyone out of prison.

I have more detailed legislative proposals on my website cops2prisonDOTorg, which is currently unavailable because of regional network maintenance. One very specific area of legislation that interests me, is exploring specific laws for when people claim they are legally allowed to shoot someone, but they didn't really need to, and did so with a disregard for the value of human life. Right now it is either murder or not guilty, in many cases. And manslaughter is too technically general, so that the definitions and sentences may not be appropriate for this specific crime. Maybe we could have an intermediate crime to charge people with, who shoot someone on their front lawn when they don't really need to, and get 10 or 15 years depending. It is a new concept, which requires analysis, argument, and debate.

None of my proposals involves paying police less. It is Republicans who complain that police will quit if they face any regulation, and don't want to pay them enough to get a product that can withstand regulation like doctors or sellers of travel or stock promoters. I think police need to be paid more, to improve the product and give people the product they want. Republicans seem to prefer an unregulated universal justice product that is worse than universal healthcare or the post office or DMV, with the assumption that someone other than them will suffer from the terrible or unjust product. But that creates a growing pool of dissatisfied voters, and turns over any product changes or improvements to Democrats and their voters.

Of course many prefer an unregulated product, so they can bend and corrupt it to their own ends. And so that nobody who is politically connected, will be likely to face justice in a district where his caucus is in the majority. And so they can locally enforce the laws they would prefer, and in the way they prefer them to be enforced. Rather than enforce laws in the way that actually has passed or could pass the legislature or win statewide or national elections.

Your idea of "community oversight" is not like any other profession, and sounds like the demand of the lunatics to run the asylum. The Bill of Rights is necessary because in many "communities" the 51% majority would burn at the stake any class of people they consider undesirable, with mock trials or no trials. Of course locals will support police faking evidence, to predetermine the outcome of a trial, of someone with a previous drug arrest, or previously accused of rape. They will say fake the evidence and string him up! And nor can police or lawyers be investigated by their peers, or by individuals in the same community, who are captive to the same political forces. Human nature needs to be channeled and filtered through a system of checks and balances. Police and prosecutors need checks and balances from people who are remote, disinterested, independent, even adversarial. And who are monitored and measured by voters based on general ideals, not local events, politics, prejudices, and grudges.



Fortunately people aren't always watching, and at those times you can ignore the Constitution to kill people you don't like.



It may tend to defy your perceptions like the stock market. The more skepticism accusations of police misconduct are prejudged with, the more misconduct police can get away with, before facing any consequences. "Hands up don't shoot" created a lot of skepticism. So now police are walking around with pac-man powers, and Republicans' minds are inoculated against any legitimate discussion of it. In the time since "hands up don't shoot", a lot of people with real accusations of actual misconduct have been told to stuff it, call 1-800-E-A-T-S-H-I-T. And they are angry about it like you don't know.



I don't care what you think of me. I only notice you prefer not to discuss actual police misconduct and policy solutions. Do you think police should be better centrally regulated at the state level, with an independent SEC-like organization? If not, is your only objection cost? And if so, why are you not willing to fund to improve this important function of government?



You could easily identify me by following the links I provided, or through the web site that is my name. I have no doubt that scumbags in the cop-worship cult want to abuse their power, to lock up anyone who points a finger at their corruption and criminal activity. Go for it, slimebag. You should try being an ordinary citizen, who doesn't get to call his cop friends to harass and abuse anyone he dislikes. You have a power-abuse reflex. You have an impulse to strike out and lock up anyone you don't like. It is a sick cop entitlement, years on the force and around cops warps your mind into a sick sociopath who thinks he is from a higher class and should face no consequences for his actions. So go for it slimeball. Send the cop-worship mafia to lock me up for having a political opinion. I am sure you have no problem saying all day this and that person should be locked up. But you think you are immune from the law, it is a sickness.



Yes, you object to the Bill of Rights for people you don't like, while police are flawless aliens who can shoot all day. It is a sick overclass mentality, and a threat at the same time. You are addicted to threatening and pointing suspicion and incarcerating anyone you object to. You should be in prison before you harm any more innocent people.



Yeah, I get told by the overclass to eat rotten food or starve. Let them eat cake.

Watching cops pray for crime is like watching a dumped girlfriend scream in the front yard how you need her. It just hardens your resolve to do better.



I only need one example of a crime, to prove that there is no one to report it to. Do you trust that crime will prevent itself, when there is no one to report it to?



The police were mic'd up? Never mind your blurry trace. Police are government employees. The idea that government employees and an army of supporters would frenzy to incite a mob against a private citizen smearing him as you have done, is appalling and cancerous. You don't get that a government which makes a business of destroying private citizens assisted by a mob of supporters who will defend any behavior against any attack, often with lies, cannot be tolerated.

Trump knows that police supporters are diseased. That is why he pardoned a felon, had a drug dealer speak at his convention. I don't remember any cops speaking. And now Trump has to go to Kenosha to try to overcome the damage done to the Republican brand by the psychotic lying diseased cop-worship cult.

The more you work in a symbiotic relationship with silent hiding police to trash this guy and incite a mob against him, the more clear it is that you need to be put down. You just don't get the proper role of government in the spirit of our country.

No sensible adult wants to live in a world where anyone who dares accuse police of misconduct is set upon by an army of lying zombies. Or where police can do misconduct any time they imagine their zombie army will be able to incite the public against that person. The whole thing needs to be euthanized and dissolved in acid asap.

You are going to destroy a private citizen to protect a government employee. That is the swamp that ordinary people come into contact with. The "war on police" is a war on anyone who complains about anything police do.

Sometimes an event can send a person over the edge. They say post traumatic stress disorder can make a person violent and erratic. Sometimes in an office setting, an event can create so much bad blood, that some of the parties have to move on. After "hands up don't shoot" police and their supporters descended into a deep paranoid criminal bunker mentality of friends and enemies, a war on and between citizens. You cannot go on being police like that. I have seen it with my own eyes. They lied about my friend, printed lies about her in a hundred newspapers, lied under oath and at trial. And nobody will do anything about it because it is a war, police are fighting a war against the citizen where they can't give an inch, they can't admit getting a case wrong, they can't be accused of perjury. They are in a paranoid and defensive and dysfunctional state that cannot be tolerated in a government institution.

If you think Americans are going to side with the government over citizens, any citizens, it's a hard road. This victory that you want, of the government over the private citizen, or over undesirable citizens, cannot be allowed. A movement that pits undesirable citizens, against government which is like a polar bear, inherently corrupt, inherently abusive, inherently over-powerful, I have to side with the slimebag. I have seen what police, insulated from consequences, can do. I have seen the power of government against citizens. I have seen the helplessness. I cannot and will not ever side with government. I cannot celebrate the government as a hero, as a saver of puppies even. It is inherently a dangerous entity which must at all times be constrained like an untame animal. The ordinary citizens, dirty in the streets, and flawed, will never be any kind of threat in comparison.

In some ways drug users are good citizens. They are like Jews. They are aware at all times that if the public consensus turns against you or your hobby or culture, your life can be taken from you, in a dispassionate instant, as if by a 4,000-foot steel robot. People who aren't drug users grow comfortable, and more friendly, as the police become more powerful. Like someone who keeps a lion kitten until it is full grown. But drug users are inoculated by a healthy level of suspicion against the police, they value privacy, and limited government. For the dumbest reason.



Cops send lies to newspapers, and manufacture sensational stories with villains, to promote themselves. Idiots like Daniel Horowitz suck it up like a pig drinking beer, and never look at the actual evidence.

I have talked to reporters who only have permission to quote police as their job description, or who literally have no talent beyond copy-pasting police. It's a problem that people don't realize papers gave up journalism as too expensive. People don't realize papers need to promote the police, and enable the police to lie, in a quid pro quo for the police to provide papers with anything to print beyond local sports scores and AP wire.

The police are their investigative reporters, and write the only juicy local stories. There is garbage that goes from local police or the local police Twitter, to an intern who will work another job after graduating college, straight to print or web edition.

Most papers don't have the staff to investigate police. And they don't have the editorial capacity to give reporters permission to quote anyone who does. Local papers are more like a Drudge Report, dealing in content they can get ready-made for cheap or for free. Such as transcribing youtube videos of sports and other local figures,

If a local reporter criticizes police, the police will stay away. If the police stop feeding them local gossip, they will be down to local sports scores, and go out of business.

On the flip side, police can say anything, any lie, about anyone. If the papers say "according to police" then they can print any garbage, any sensational blood libel, with no legal risk. So police have the magic pac-man power to enable papers to print lies, and thereby manufacture more juicy stories than an actual reporter could produce, who is confined to telling the truth.



The person with no evidentiary support for their position is the Kenosha police, who refuse to provide a detailed statement to support any of this.

Police and state attorneys hide evidence all the time. Foolish is the citizen who revels in attaching himself to that sort of endeavor.



The type of knife wasn't in the police statement. Anybody who said he was reaching for a knife in the car was bearing false witness. Anybody who said he admitted before he went to the car that he had a knife, which has no basis, would deserve death in a capital case according to the Stela of Hammurabi. I don't anticipate any of you demanding your appropriate and just punishment.

It took them a week to wait for video and witnesses to speak, to invent a story without actually saying why he shot him when he did. I'm guessing that blur in the video was car keys or something. All witnesses say the same thing: They did not see a knife at that point when he was in front of the car. So we literally don't know that was a knife

If there was no blur, they would have said the other story, he was reaching for a knife in the car. In neither case will lying sickos who spread the story they didn't use (including admitting he had a knife before going to the car), apologize for spreading lies to incite a mob against a private citizen.

And the police wouldn't have told any story, and would have continued to hide and develop lies, if a Republican politician hadn't told them listen sickos, you and your supporters acting like criminals and spreading lies is killing us. Which it is.

There were people on Breitbart who believed the Jacob Blake events would increase Trump's support in Wisconsin. I want to point out that Wisconsin has underperformed states like Pennsylvania since police shot Jacob Blake.



If everyone who is arrested is guilty, do you think we should save money and get rid of jury trials? How about any other lines in the Bill of Rights? They sound like a waste of time and money, if it is so easy to avoid the police by obeying the law.

You sound like a lib who would say "I never get mugged because I am nice to black people."



Because what you said is inane and logically idiotic, but with a tone of smugness that shows you have no clue you are a space cadet.



Here is a cop staging evidence in a murder case:

seminolescam.com/bullet

Here is a prosecutor lying and saying someone was shot while fleeing, even though it is contrary to the evidence:

seminolescam.com/fleeing

Here is a cop lying to a jury:

seminolescam.com/sirens

There would be no record of that if I didn't make a record. And even after I make the record, you won't count it. So your "less than one percent false arrest" leaves out the ones nobody writes down, and leaves out the ones you will completely ignore even if someone writes them down and shows them to you.

Do you acknowledge that cop committed perjury in a murder trial? Do you acknowledge he did so without any punishment or consequence? Do you acknowledge if I didn't write it down, there would be no record of it, no way for you to know it happened?

If you ignore all that, then any stat coming from your mouth is less than worthless, a lie.



The taxpayer must pay what they have to. Because a lot of people don't want police, when random people pay the costs instead of the taxpayer. Who would want police, when they are above the law and there is no justice?

Money can increase the pool of available applicants, and allow those who do not react well to be encouraged to find another line of work.



Police shooting people does not make America unique. The Bill of Rights makes America unique. There is no "thin blue line" or even anything at all to promote police, in our founding documents and debates. Rather, police are feared at every turn in the Bill of Rights.



We hear this every day, if a cop commits perjury against me, I must have been doing something wrong.



It's so disturbing to me, that this type of misguided comment is what Republicans hope to use to defeat marxist nihilists.

Because there is a genuine attitude that if you have a past drug arrest, proven false, or shoplift, then police and the court system can use you for sport the way a bird uses a worm.

And if voters want to have some control over what happens after you have that past false arrest, or you do that misdemeanor, Republicans say no, those people have no Bill of Rights. They are like undesirables in Britain.



You mean like Byron Donalds and Darrell Issa?

You mean like Elijah McClain?

You mean like Donald Trump who engaged in a conspiracy with Russia?



So you don't actually like the Republican political strategy, of waking up in the morning and beginning reciting all the crimes people have been accused of, and repeating and repeating and repeating until they check the polls late at night, and fall asleep exhausted?



Ann Coulter, in her most recent column, pointed out the people Kyle Rittenhouse shot were "a convicted child molester and a convicted domestic violence repeat offender". This doesn't just suggest or worry some that it might imply, or be incorrectly taken to suggest, that people with past convictions have no rights. Ann Coulter really does believe that people with past criminal accusations, or even general undesirables, are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

I have a friend who was falsely accused of having 7 pounds of illegal drugs. It was a moral panic, reprinted in 100 newspapers. The crime lab said she broke no law. But because of what it said in those newspapers, people consider it appropriate that police later framed her for murder, life without parole from age 21. To this day, I can show someone the court documents that all charges were dropped in the drug case, after the crime lab report came back. And people say no, I still believe she had 7 pounds of drugs, 100 newspapers can't be wrong.



I guarantee you that all rules of evidence and case law, would prohibit any past act by someone Kyle Rittenhouse shot, as evidence of his intent when being shot by Kyle Rittenhouse. Even if the person were accused and tried for attacking Kyle Rittenhouse, evidence of specific acts may not be introduced to infer that because a person acted in a certain manner on one occasion, the person acted in a similar matter on the unique occasion in question.

But since Kyle Rittenhouse had no idea who it was who was attacking him, then even the reputation of that person is irrelevant in weighing the decision of Kyle Rittenhouse. But Republicans sincerely expect to win this election, by saying things that are either stupid or dishonest, like saying case law used when proving a another person's intent when that person is tried, is relevant to whether Kyle Rittenhouse broke the law.

It is all cockeyed and crooked, and Republicans after "hands up don't shoot" are cut off from feedback from reality that would allow them to correct course. Republicans stick to this idea that someone with a past conviction or accusation, can have his life taken casually. The voters don't like that argument.



Imagine how many innocent people must be in prison, because medical examiners say people died of asphyxiation in a homicide when they didn't. All these fragile people die so easily, and yet police run around calling it murder and locking up innocents for the deaths of those who died on their own.

My friend is serving life without parole from age 21 for a death that was called in as a suicide. Witnesses said she was not near the guy who died. But police staged evidence to claim he was fleeing her. Instead of anybody standing up for her, I get to hear from an army of liars in the Republican party, standing up for those police who lied.



Unlike Twitter, and Antifa, police who feed sensational libel to newspapers can't be sued. All papers have to say is "according to police" and they can print any blood libel. Local papers laid off all their investigative reporters, and just copy-paste the police Twitter feed. This is what papers will tell you if you call them and object to a story which you can prove is false. They say "we don't care if it is false, we only have the intellectual and legal capacity to reprint cop press releases."



It's nice that everyone on your side is getting kicked off facebook and Twitter (where they were dumb enough to go in the first place), but the Attorney General of the USA is out hunting snowboarders for their political beliefs.



Reinoehl is even less than that. He is one less loony sleeping in his car. It's inappropriate for the Attorney General of the United States to pound his chest over some random idiot in the street. It makes it seem like he thinks his job is to target political enemies not crime. As if with hundreds of murders in the streets, there is no crime of greater importance than a broke unemployed halfwit private citizen from the other political party.



That sounds like war, not common murder or criminal justice. And what Barr did was assassinate a political enemy, not a common arrest. The voters don't like it.



The name you chose, "Throatpunch" makes you sound like a rape victim. Are you sure that wasn't the result of your poor choices?

Cops lie. Unlike most dindoo nuffins, cops work for the government. That makes them evil swamp things. And they have a cult army of lying apologists. That makes them election losers.

I wonder why they didn't just use your same argument on James Madison, when he proposed the Bill of Rights to satisfy the anti-federalists. Come on James, those ne'er do wells only want a Bill of Rights to compensate for their poor choices putting them on the wrong side of the law all the time. Who would need lawyers or public jury trials if they weren't breaking the law? Instead of amending the Constitution, why not just lock up those criminal BS artists.



Cops lie. And then like a spastic sea creature, their cult of supporters attacks anyone who shines light on the lies. Most drug addicts at least wish they could self improve. Cops and their supporters lie like Tony Montana does cocaine, with no shame.



How about this sick weasel cop who shamelessly lied on the stand about a younger girl:

seminolescam.com/sirens

How about this sick jealous cop who staged a bullet:

seminolescam.com/bullet

How about this sick male cop who deleted video timestamps and lied in his police report to frame a young woman:

seminolescam.com/fleeing

seminolescam.com/brady

You like that those mediocre men lied about that girl and used her for sport. No throat punching of those criminals who took advantage of a girl.



Police and their supporters have become like a cancerous organ. Not knowing what to do about it doesn't make people stupid.



Move to China.



Ever since Heather MacDonald called "hands up don't shoot" a war, police have been surrounded by a propaganda army of liars.



You think the Governor should grant clemency to common citizens recklessly accused of homicide by asphyxiation?



That is decades even before Willie Horton. Got any ideas to win a campaign in 2020?



Except we have Barr and Miller and Gingrich, and about a million other people with violent paranoid flashbacks, fighting "rehabilitation and root causes" in the 1970's.



Unfortunately, ever since "hands up don't shoot" Republicans have been inoculated against any legitimate complaints about the justice system. If a cop frames an innocent person, the cop is a hero and the innocent person is an undesirable communist. And they refuse to develop statistics, so any example of the same pattern of misconduct by police and prosecutors is anecdotal. And anyone who complains will be attacked by an army of cop-cult liars and called a druggy or a rapist or a communist or someone who should be executed without a trial. And then this mob of armed big-government fanatics who thinks they are above the law, wonders why they are down in the polls to a corpse.



When you say "No one thinks that a cop framing an innocent person makes him a hero" you are an example of your person who "either dismisses or flat out refuses to hear any dissent".

Example one, Tod Harwood:

"To get a search warrant for King's home, for example, Harwood falsely suggested that a pair of bullets found on the floor of King's home were the ones that killed Breeden when the detective knew the bullets never left the victim's body."

"KSP Commissioner Rodney Brewer, who was rehired by Gov. Andy Beshear in January, gave Harwood a 'commissioner's commendation' for his 'outstanding achievement in solving Breeden's murder.'"

Example two, Detective Ben Sprague of the Altamonte Springs Police Department, who was awarded LEO of the Year by elected State Attorney Phil Archer.

Here Detective Sprague changes the police report and lies to the jury that a man was shot while fleeing:

seminolescam.com/fleeing

Here Detective Sprague supervises CSI Alison Smolarek to stage a bullet to fit the narrative:

seminolescam.com/bullet

Here prosecutor Lori Ana "cankles" Sacco tries to hide that Sprague deleted the video timestamps and invented his own:

seminolescam.com/brady

Here Officer Jackson Athaide makes another lie under oath about those same video timestamps:

seminolescam.com/sirens

You will say that is just an anecdote. But if I didn't make the record and show it to you, there would be no record of it anywhere for you to find. This is an example of what you call a group who "has placed itself in an echo chamber" by refusing to record or investigate allegations of police misconduct to know how many there are. And then you call all examples someone manages to uncover against all obfuscation "anecdotal."

When a detective violated the "echo chamber" by saying another person confessed to the murder Tod Harwood framed an innocent person for, he got demoted:

"The city of Louisville in 2014 paid $450,000 to Detective Barron Morgan to settle a whistleblower case in which he said he was demoted by then-Chief Steve Conrad to the graveyard shift for telling the Kentucky Innocence Project about Jarrell's confession."

Since I know you won't click on or pay any attention to what I just said, I will remind you of a Sowell quote I sent to a prosecutor in one of those shameless frameups:

"Facts may be marshalled for a position already taken, but that is very different from systematically testing opposing theories by evidence... Discordant evidence may be dismissed as isolated anomalies, or as something tendentiously selected by opponents, or it may be explained away ad hoc by a theory having no empirical support whatever -- except that this ad hoc theory is able to sustain itself and gain acceptance because it is consistent with the overall vision."

If you begin with the assumption that undesirables need to be locked up and police are heroes, then all evidence faked in support of those assumptions will be rewarded. And all detractors who offer examples of cops lying and victimizing the innocent will be dismissed.



Not just all police, but all Republicans are complicit in covering it up. Here I have given you an example of three cops and two prosecutors committing crimes, lying and faking evidence in a murder trial. The evidence of their crimes is there for anyone to see and prosecute. A 21-year-old girl is serving a life sentence without parole, for a crime that did not happen. And the response of no LEO nor any Republican is to do anything about it. The response, man woman and child, is to say "nobody wants that, it is anecdotal." Well it is sitting right in front of your face, much more plain than a murder. And absolutely nobody will do anything about it, except attack me for pointing at it.



Doctor Sowell was speaking about human nature in general. In the beginning of "Knowledge and Decisions" he mentioned a warning of an imminent attack on Pearl Harbor, but no institution or process to accept, validate, and act upon that warning.

At the beginning of "Vision of the Anointed" Sowell said people have been making errors and committing sins as long as there have been people. He said the necessary ingredient for an error to become fatal, is insulation from feedback from reality. He offered as an example not police, but Nazi Germany.

Republicans refuse to comprehend any of the flaws in the justice system, or how they manufacture millions of people voting against them in close elections. Sowell additionally mentioned how, unlike the private sector where people pay a quiet price for errors, politicians will carry on indefinitely, and drag down a whole society, without ever admitting they were wrong. Because the price of publicly admitting error and adjusting course is too high.

It is just assumed that Tom Cotton's "the mob is coming for your house" ad will work and is working. Nobody checks the polls to see if it is actually working. And if the polls go the wrong direction in every state where he runs his ad, that was just a chance coincidence. (I just paraphrased Sowell quoting Schumpeter, again not specifically talking about police.)



I get slandered and ignored on here every day. As Sowell said, people are never more sincere than when they presume their own moral superiority.

You have probably never been charged with murder or any serious crime, or even obtained all the discovery and sat through the trial of such a case. So you are as Sowell portrays Hillary Clinton: Wanting to take over the entire healthcare system, having never so much as run a drug store for a day. You speak from no experience, but only theory.

I have an entire website based on the work of your thought leader, Dr. Sowell. I rarely go more than a few paragraphs without paraphrasing Sowell. I illustrate the justice system through the lense of Dr. Sowell's work, analysing the incentives and constraints in the processes and institutions of the justice system.

But because you find my thesis discordant with your preexisting vision, you will dismiss it without ever clicking the link.



Everyone wants to regulate police locally. So that the local political majority has the freedom to use police any way they want, against the people they don't want. But after Heather MacDonald declared war, police developed a bunker mentality and began using that freedom even more broadly and abusively, in a perceived war with private citizens, where they can admit no wrong. A government institution which is aligned with a political party and develops its own interests - like a teachers union - becomes dysfunctional.



Yeah I really need to hear another airhead quoted. What an army of armed cops who are above the law, defended by a mob of liars, has to do with freedom, is never specified. Over and over I see and hear about cops lying and victimizing the innocent without consequence. Rather than ever admit needing any product improvement, catgirldreamer II will do nothing, and instead demand the status quo or worse.



The reason you are sitting doing nothing, and others are out in the streets, is a difference in experience. Those in the streets have an innocent friend or family member who has been victimized by police, or have been victimized themselves. You just sit at home saying "The paper says that guy was accused of having drugs, this guy had sex when he was a teenager, shoot him, give him life!" That is millions of people you are sitting at home eating popcorn, and inciting an armed government institution to take their freedoms away, using lies or any means necessary.



These same police who will in most cases do everything they can to hide and obfuscate such a video, will kick in my door without hesitation to get any video if my neighbor somehow asphyxiates to death on my sofa. Not only will they not give me the same benefit of the doubt as Charles Hurt, but they will plant, stage, and overlook evidence as necessary to make sure they have no trouble pinning the blame on me and getting a conviction. And after police tell the newspaper their narrative of how I murdered my neighbor to sensationalize for clicks without any liability for libel, Charles Hurt will not defend me. Rather Charles Hurt will say I am a psychotic murderer and a perfect reason why we need the death penalty. And all this will happen while I am locked in isolation with no bond, months before I even get to see the evidence against me or talk to a lawyer, or even tell my family members what happened, without the prosecutor editing the phone calls or using the information to decide what swabs not to send to the lab because they could exonerate me.



If cops just investigate and never frame anyone, then how about we net save money by 1) get rid of amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, and 2) create a new independent investigative body to investigate police?



Or half the counties in Florida, and every other state I have lived in. You think there is an "internal affairs" in any rural area where the Sheriff will railroad anyone who hasn't had sex with his cousin?



When I give details and examples of what crooked slime police are, I often hear from cops that they think I must be a cop.



For one thing, printing allegations is not fake news to Charles Hurt, when newspapers who have laid off all their reporters copy paste cops all day.

For another thing, an angry mob is a designed part of the process of initiating investigations into police. When a stock goes up on volume before a merger announcement, the SEC doesn't wait for a mob to demand they investigate. But people like Charles Hurt don't want an SEC for police, an independent institution in the executive branch to proactively initiate investigations and prosecute them.

So there is no investigation or any accountability for police, unless criminals and a mob initiate it. That is the design.



You are like a pathetic ex-girlfriend crying in the front yard how I need you.



So you admit the job of police is to do murder on behalf of sick evil men like you.



I am at the mud pits off Peavine Trail right now f****t. You just tell me when you will show up. In the meantime I am going to get some sleep and dream of a silly marshmallow idiot on the Internet.



What are you, 12 years old, you wait for your parents to go to sleep so you can prank threaten to murder adults on the Internet? You are a sick child who has no part in adult debates.



Which is the more common attitude among authors of the Constitution? To be a cop-cult parrot? Or to write an entire Bill of Rights with the primary purpose to stick a hand in the face of arrogant idiots, presumed to be corrupt through all of human history.



You say you swore an oath to the Constitution. I take it you are a cop because you can't write two sentences without thinking about sadism and forced sodomy. I bet you know a guy named Abner Louima.



Why do you support scumbag cops who lie and victimize the innocent? Why do you want to defend cops from going to prison, when they commit perjury and undermine the justice system and its credibility?

Oh, I know why. It's because you don't care about policy or victimizing the innocent or anything like that. You just want to think of yourself as cool. So if I were to argue about case law or LEO discipline or something, you would respond with "I am tough, I will kill you." So your political philosophy consists of "I am cool and you are a weakling." And in your simple mind, you think that makes you a Republican.

A cool guy would drive as long as it takes to shake down this donut-eater for lying under oath:

seminolescam.com/sirens

But you are just a basement couch tough guy who doesn't care if every cop is a fat idiot liar.

Come on, man! If you have trouble figuring out whether cops are liars or not, then you ain't a Republican!



LOL, a dog ran up on the Internet and ate your self esteem.



Like I said, any Internet f****t actually wants to come visit me on public property, I will be there to meet you. Though it is a waste of electricity to point that out to people who type big and do nothing. And then say "we need to get out in the streets to beat these Antifa thugs" but never do. Then one goes out with a can of mace and gets shot, and they all cry 24/7 and call in the US military for backup to take on a brain-damaged snowboarder. Those Patriot guys showed up in camouflage, and got murdered by a hippie in sandals.



You have the passion of a rioter.



Now Tom Cotton sees millions of voters and their families and sympathisers as the enemy.



At least I am not the one running a "the mob is coming for your house" ad that drains the polls like a bathtub.



There's a problem when Trump shows a video of a single person, and then says "Animals that must be hit hard!" That is a war, when you aim to "hit" multiple people for the crimes of an individual. He is saying all people on the left are complicit in this crime and must be targeted for death. At the same time, no matter how many police commit perjury, I get told it is one bad apple, and police are mostly non-perjurous. (And of course even those who are perjurous, all police will resist punishing those few.) But now we have one party, Republicans, seeing the police as their army to hit members of the other party.



That is what cops and their supporters like Ann Coulter do when bored. Ann Coulter is over on Twitter suggesting anyone who has ever been arrested, should be imprisoned for life.



It is Don jr who is held to a different standard. Most people who aren't politically connected have to deal with local cops deleting evidence every day. The Trumps are privileged in that no cops go crooked on them until late in their lives at the highest level. It is ridiculous to have a man that age, for the first time in his life, say OMG who knew cops could be crooked I must be the first person this ever happened to.



If it were rare, you would be angry and curious about where this happened, who was this cop who destroys the credibility of the justice system, and turns the country over to marxists. Was he punished? It is not interesting because it is standard procedure. Even when marxists are about to take every office, you still aren't interested to admit there is a problem. That's politics, cult suicide.



What people like you do is ignore the facts which I have made available in the case I am referring to.

You tried to explain me to me. I will do a neat trick, and explain you to you. You call yourself "RationalOne" but you don't care the slightest bit about the case I mentioned. Because it is outside your insulated preconceptions, you just don't believe it. Any "rational" analysis by you took place in another time and place, and is long over. And then reality defies your preconceptions, like in the stock market. The more preconceptions you prejudge allegations of police misconduct with, the more actual misconduct police are able to get away with before getting hassled. When police see people like you just don't believe when they are accused of it, they do it!

For that reason, you have no concern to look at the facts. But if you did, you would discover my friend was accused of having 7 pounds of GHB a year earlier. She never had 7 pounds of GHB, it was a false accusation, the crime lab said the police were wrong and dropped all charges. But your "rational" mind would refuse to believe that, and would insist because it was a moral panic in 100 newspapers, that she had 7 pounds of GHB. And GHB is a "date rape drug", so she is probably the world's most evil criminal.

And you would say because she possessed 7 pounds of GHB, it is fair game to frame her for murder. You may admit or deny you believe this. But I have heard it from dozens of people just like you. Ann Coulter is over on Twitter right now, suggesting anyone who has ever been arrested should be imprisoned for life, to make the world a better place. So you believe it is fair to frame someone who possessed 7 pounds of GHB for murder, and any faking of evidence police did to get a person like that is a good thing, and she brought it on herself with her bad decisions.

Of course, you KNOW you could never get an actual law like this past the legislature. You know you would lose a campaign, with a platform of life without parole from age 21, for anyone with a past drug arrest, in the vicinity of a crime. You know a politician who actually ran on what Ann Coulter advocates, life without parole for someone who uses stolen credit cards at Walmart, would lose an election.

But because you still think it is right and good, you will support a justice system which achieves that result which you think is good, outside the law. By coercing witnesses to lie, or losing evidence, or police straight lying, or whatever. But even though you know the policy you support could never win an election, you will become confused when you lose an election, when people figure out what policy it is you really support.

So when people figure out you support police lying to give life without parole to a 21-year-old girl with a past drug arrest (which you refuse to believe was proven false), they have no choice but to vote for radical communists. And then you say why are people voting for radical nihilists, they are irrational! And you never consider moderating your own flawed criminal anti-democratic behavior, even in the face of turning the country over to marxists.

And furthermore, as "rational" as you claim to be, your belief that police perjury is rare is based on no statistics. Because police and their organized defense mechanism, simply refuse to write down 99.99% of allegations of police misconduct.

There is no independent institution in the executive branch like the SEC, to force police to report all allegations against them, to publish those allegations, and to proactively investigate them. So "rational" people like you are free to make the dishonest argument that police perjury is rare, and all examples are anecdotal.

It is only when they kill a black person on video and don't delete the video or successfully beat the public records request for it in court, that there is even any record to use against them. People then try to use that video, very similar to how you think it is okay to frame people who got away after being arrested in the past. You think there is this "revolving door" so you need three strikes laws and habitual offender laws, to finally lock up people who need to be locked up, for nothing. But you object to the same concept being used against cops.

So people see police as "habitual offenders" who all their past misconduct was never written down, and was successfully defended by people like you who insist it never happened. They see police as people who, thanks to people like you, always get away with it. So now they need to use any charge they can, to beat the revolving door and lock up bad cops.

I think you should lecture people about being "STUCK" on this case of these cops who got shot in LA.



LeBron was not speeding. So a cop has no business talking to him.



Yes, they set out in search of low crime, and to worship a cop overclass who would someday be immune to justice. Oh wait, they were actually fleeing the police, who considered them illegal radicals.



I hear every day on Breitbart, how being American is defined as worshipping cops.



There were already savages in the New World. But they weren't allowed to vote.

Do you realize that this current anti-police movement is a movement of white people?



The words "war on police" will destroy the Republican party. The American way is built on restraining police and an adversarial justice system. Treatng anyone who tries to defend himself against armed idiots and amoral sociopaths as an enemy to be destroyed, alienates millions of people. Like if a cop breaks the law and you try to report it, you are attacked by Republicans.



John Nolte has described how Republicans treat anyone who tries to report a cop for breaking the law.



As it is now, anyone with a past drug arrest police just fake evidence and say "Who you gonna believe? Me, Mr. Buzzcut, or a guy who was arrested with heroin last year?" So when they start using lies to incite a mob against you, welcome to America.

Of course cops are better at using lies than most people. Because any record of their previous lies is resisted or, if that fails, buried in a deep hole. And then if you even mention that police can lie, the entire Republican party will dump the intellectual equivalent of sewage on your head, rather than engage in any real policy analysis. Because their "war on police" is a war on common citizens who complain about them.

We wouldn't need video cameras, if police didn't have a million defenders when they commit the crime of perjury. And as long as police and prosecutors pay no penalty for lying, no amount of video cameras will ever be enough to make up for zero deterrent.



I promise they will shoot your ass just for coming to the door when they get a tip called in that you own a gun.



So as long as I find my local police or political process imperfect, I can shoot them?



The right says all day that cops can do what they do because of who they are. And individual cops are not punished. At most, people sue the city or something, for what individual cops do. So cops and their supporters being treated collectively is the designed paradigm. There is no individual responsibility for cops, by design. And police, themselves, more than any other group or profession except prosecutors, will shield members of their group from accountability for breaking the law or victimizing the innocent. So random police really do intend to stand with, and on behalf of, individual police. All police wish and intend to be accessories, eager conspirators, in the crimes of the individual.

Police and prosecutors who victimize the innocent, do it for sport, and to pander to the lowest impulses of their supporters.



I guarantee if some dirty jig has a high capacity mag, they will call it felony murder on the nearest dead body and give him the needle.



Republicans can live blog themselves getting run over by a car. As long as they protect police in the crime of perjury, the American people will be driving that car.



This election was supposed to be about prosperity versus socialism. Then Republicans couldn't help themselves and said let's make it about a cop worship cult, and a path to utopia of government shooting and locking up the people we don't like. Then Biden said he's not a socialist.

So now it is the ordinary moderates against the cops, the people shooters. Republicans who think Americans like cops more than communism are lost. Americans hate communism because of the cops.

It's not Trump that is losing. It's Tom Cotton and the rest of you, who hate your neighbors with "hands up don't shoot" "handcuffing the police" derangement syndrome. You guys really thought riots in Wisconsin would push polls your way Guess what, everybody hates the cops.





Let's calibrate your ruler. Who is about to win the election?



Wait, I'm waking up, where am I what year is it, who is about to win the election?



An American and a Russian are sitting in a bar, arguing over whose country was better. The American argues,

"See, in America, I am free to do whatever I want. If I wanted to, I could walk right into the White House, slam my fist on the President's desk, and say 'Mr. President, I don't like the way you are running our country.'"

The Russian then said, "I can do the same thing."

"Really? You can?" asks the American.

"Yes," continues the Russian, "If I wanted to, I could walk right into the Kremlin, slam my fist on the General Secretary's office, and say 'Mr. General Secretary, I don't like the way President Reagan is running his country.'"



In utopia, the government is all milk and honey.



A Republican party that defines being American as cop worship is dead. Could it be that making it about cops will keep on losing?



Me and Andrew Jackson, who would clean the boots of no Englishman.



Better to worship freedom and restrained government, without investing too much hope in the rationality and goodness of mankind in any enterprise, including justice.



Cops2Prison.org is an independent and original and unique think tank.



Sending police to prison when they break the law is anarchy? What is it when cops don't follow the law?



I see cops face no penalty for the crime of perjury. Without that, no other law matters, it is all corrupt nonsense.



I have heard just today, people on Breitbart whining about the FBI abusing Trump, the House of Representatives abusing their role policing the Executive Branch, cops abusing Trump's campaign manager Brad Parscale, prosecutors abusing their power presenting evidence to a grand jury to indict the McCloskeys, cops framing Kyle Rittenhouse with a false arrest, and crooked prosecutors killing Jake Gardner. And you say "Thank you sir, may I please have another?"



Too bad Harris isn't running against Pence, she is running against Heather Macdonald.

Timeline of Destruction of the Republican Party

Have you noticed Republicans coming up dry at the old crime well, among white voters, and in swing states, in the 2020 election?

Thought leaders like Ann Coulter say this must be because the media didn't report the riots or events of the summer, so nobody knew about them. LOL. Here is the true timeline of the destruction of the Republican Party.

After a 2011 Supreme Court ruling said they could, crooked prosecutors like Republican Phil Archer could not resist the temptation to use lies to convict the innocent, to appear to be successfully "tough on crime", and put over a fraud on the gullible, crime-oriented Republican voter. Knowing how much Republicans hate juries, prosecutors said hey I can just lie and hide evidence and trick the jury and get any result I want. And there is no consequence, no penalty for lying, but only a reward when the voters see me locking up lowlifes. I can use this cheap scam to win votes, I can create fake villains and lock them up, and Republican voters will love me for torturing their neighbors with lies.

And scumbags like Phil Archer were right, it worked for a time, people are dumb suckers who will torture and believe any blood libel about their fellow citizens. Especially with mugshots all over the Internet, people had no problem believing their neighbors were worthless untermenschen who deserved their own torture, based on nothing but accusations.



But people whose family members experience unredressed injustice at the hands of their government, have extremely long memories as politics go, and greater passion than voters on any other issue. As the numbers added up over the years, the justice system became hated by the people it was supposed to protect, when too many of their friends and family members got firsthand experience and became victims of it. Even the victims of crimes do not like to be lied to, or to torture random people, quite so much as Republican prosecutors and their voters like lying and torturing random people.

Used-car salesmen like Republican Phil Archer spent the credibility of the justice system recklessly, for their own self promotion in a party of naive geeky idealists. The justice system came to be associated with cynical, sociopathic prosecutors, coerced lies, and hidden evidence. The crime well was poisoned for the white voter, and Republicans can never go back to it again. It is the end of the road for something that fed the party for 50 years.

White suburban voters wanted criminals locked up. Instead, Republican prosecutors delivered a carnival scam, using lies to lock up the innocent thinking it would excite Republican voters. That is how dumb prosecutors like Phil Archer think you are, that is how simple is his take on the ideals and values of Republican philosophy. Maybe, but if so, it is nevertheless doomed to failure in a democracy, by any party dumb enough to believe it. Thanks to this brilliant strategy, white suburban voters all over the country are running to Democrats, even half dead ones, even as their neighborhoods are burned by agitators. This for ignoring our better sense about government and human nature, and the lessons of history, to invest a utopian trust in police and prosecutors.

Even the great Sheriff Grady Judd is a fraud. He said he would have had the George Floyd cops in his jail by sundown. Before he knew the facts. When in reality, there are no video cameras in Polk County, nor body cams nor dash cams, and Grady Judd does not want them. And then he tried to boost the reputation of police, by trying a murder case in the media, inciting a mob against a defendant based on hearsay, and putting great pressure on police and witnesses and even jurors to not contradict his narrative. That is not trial by jury, that is a Roman trial.



When I put up the websites seminolescam.com and cops2prison.org, my intention was never to prove Republicans are scumbags. My intention was to elucidate major credibility issues in the justice system. Discovering that my fellow Republicans are, in fact, scumbags on criminal justice issues, and proving it, has been very disappointing.

I don't think Republican politicians want to be scumbags, I think they are idealists. But they have unintentionally cut themselves off from reality. For example, there is this hero Republican prosecutor Phil Archer whose standard business is to use lies to get convictions. Many common Republicans knowingly support that. But the sort of philosophical intellectual idealists of the Republican Party have sealed themselves off from simple facts like this. How have they sealed themselves off?

The first step, is Republicans have a preconception of anyone who stands up for the Bill of Rights, or echoes the common historical judicial grievances of the Declaration of Independence, as coming from the discredited "rehabilitation and root causes" movement in the 1970's. The second step is Republicans have a preconception of anyone who complains about police misconduct as being a race hustler, like in Ferguson. Republicans miss that the recent anti-police movement is mainly white people, and it is genuine grassroots. Republicans think it is Soros astroturf.

The third step is assigning a branch of government, an institution for the regulation of police and prosecutors, and then rejecting the legitimacy of that branch of government. So that there is no regulation of police and prosecutors. And then making the disastrous political mistake, of aligning themselves with a group of armed government employees who are unregulated, who pay no price for victimizing the innocent. Americans have always rebelled against that sort of thing. Nobody sailed across the ocean to find more police.

Anyone knows there is no independent institution in the executive branch to investigate and prosecute police, and deter police misconduct. By design, it is the job of those accused of crimes to investigate police misconduct. The FDLE specifically told me it is the job of private defense attorneys to prosecute police when they break the law. So Republicans intentionally turned regulation over to criminals. They then said there is no need for regulation, because all the complaints come from criminals, and we will never believe them.

In her book "The War on Cops" Heather Mcdonald characterized this designed, intended part of the criminal justice system - the only monitor, the only check on police and prosecutor misconduct - as a war. By doing so, she declared war on anyone who complains about police misconduct, and their families and sympathizers.

So Heather Mcdonald effectively declared a war by police and their supporters, their worship cult, on the general public. As if the general public is not a legitimate participant! As if the general public is more corruptible, and the government is less corruptible! And she said that Republicans have a moral mandate to ignore allegations of police misconduct, to insulate police from any consequences of wrongdoing, to save lives.



It took literally only a few years for this book to infect all departments around the country, and create a war between the police and the citizens. And when Republicans align themselves with police, who do you think is going to win in a democracy? And it was also only a few years after Connick v Thompson interpreted the archaic rights of the King of England in the broadest possible way in 2011, that prosecutors were emboldened that there could never be any penalty for victimizing the innocent, and many gullible Republicans would reward them.

So Republicans have no idea the justice system they defend reflexively is evil garbage. It is enabled to be garbage specifically because they defend it reflexively, like parrots. And they have no idea what hit them.

Republicans need to take this issue of corruption and gaming the rules in the criminal justice system, this albatross which they have a reputation of being in support of, off the table as an issue in elections, by fixing it, so they can get back in power for all that is good. Republicans should try again being the party of freedom and limited government, instead of a utopian worship cult of fraudulent police and prosecutors.

Criminal Guilt Determined Socially

What if being accused of a crime were like being a Republican? Would Republicans consider government employees giving people life sentences a utopian solution? Yes, everyone should have a nice house, and every criminal should be in prison.

When I was a kid in the 1990's, I used to play poker for a living. Poker is a game designed to have just enough randomness, to hide from bad players that they are losing money. Suppose bad players sat down and on the first hand you took a third of their money, and another third on the next hand, and then the last of it on the next hand. They would never come back. It is only by letting them sometimes win hands, and going through a lot of uncertainty, that they are encouraged with the false belief that they can make some money. A bad player who gets lucky and draws out a couple flushes on his first day, will come back and lose money for years, based on the false impression he got that first day.

Republicans are lucky enough to go up against liberals who are totally disconnected from reality. In most policy preferences, the outcome of bad left-wing policies is camouflaged from them, like in poker. They say global warming is killing the planet. But like in poker, some summers are up, some are down, so they are free to believe they are right. When they raised the minimum wage in Puerto Rico, they blamed unemployment on hurricanes. In North Korea they blame famine on a drought. So Republicans are very rare to pin the outcomes of their bad policies on squirming liberals.

One exception was crime. Back in the 1970's, liberals said crime could be cured not by locking up people who don't obey the law, but through rehabilitation and addressing root causes. Liberals were wrong, crime went up, and Republicans proved it. Republicans said lock up people who break the law and crime will go down, and it did.

Republicans never forget that rare victory. Like a novice poker player who gets lucky and hits a straight flush, Republicans think they know something about the criminal justice system. They think they understand the jury system perfectly - juries always let everyone off - and they understand police perfectly - not racists and trying to do a good job. So like a poker player who remembers that time he won big, Republicans always try to come back to that same well, the crime issue. But what if Republicans don't understand the criminal justice system as well as they think they do? What if they are like the poker player who got lucky once and thinks he is good, and it leads them to come back and lose for years?

The criminal justice system is actually everything Republicans hate. It is a government institution, like the Post Office or DMV. For that reason, it is garbage and totally corruptible. Republicans' heroes, the Founding Fathers, knew this. Many of their Grievances in the Declaration of Independence were grievances about criminal justice. The Bill of Rights is written mainly to constrain police, on the belief that they are far from utopian. Like most government institutions such as universal healthcare, the Founders knew the outcome of criminal justice could be far from its advertised purpose.

Worse, criminal justice is supposed to be based on evidence. But like a political campaign against liberals, in real life it turns out to be a social process. Suppose a witness sees someone fall off a balcony. Then a policeman tells the witness the victim was shot. Now the witness will remember hearing a gunshot. Then the witness reads in the paper the victim was robbed. Suddenly the witness remembers someone saying "Hand over the wallet." Suppose a witness sees a picture of the accused in the newspaper. Suddenly he says "Yes, that is the guy I saw running away, I can identify him." So like running for office against liberals, a person accused of a crime is faced with an endless stream of garbage that people read in the paper and call evidence.

Republicans like to think a trial is this sort of scientific process, like in a mystery book or a crime TV show. But what if it is more like two political candidates, taking opposite positions? Don't people believe the liberal half the time, even though you know he is wrong? Jurors are pulled from voter registrations. In an off year, when Presidents usually lose Congress to the other party, it is not hard to get a juror pool composed entirely of voters who voted for one party or the other. When they vote for liberals, do they look at evidence, or do they just decide whom to believe based on his haircut? When they get into the jury box it is the same thing. They sleep through all the diagrams. And then they say well this guy is telling me this, this other guy is telling me this, I like the first guy, I believe the first guy.

Republicans say there are no false convictions. But then they say if you hang out in the wrong neighborhood, or with drug people, people are going to suspect you are a druggy too. So don't be surprised if you get convicted of a crime. So if someone is hanging out with the wrong people and someone gets shot, Republicans say sure, you might be falsely convicted of murder. Or if someone has a past drug arrest, they say don't be surprised if people think the worst, and believe the cop and not you.

So Republicans don't consider those to be false convictions. They consider those fair convictions because, even though you didn't do the crime you were convicted of, it is your own fault for being a bad person. So Republicans admit it is not an evidence process, it is a social process. People who think police have their best interests at heart like Democrats, and think heroin users are mean and evil like Republicans, will believe the cop. So like a liberal, the cop can lie and the accused has no chance. People would hate the cops as much as you hate running against Bill Clinton.

What if police and prosecutors were just as bad as liberals in every other institution of government. What if getting arrested were just like running against a liberal. Except the liberals could do what they really want, which is to put the people they don't like in prison. Imagine the millions of people that would alienate every year. Imagine the hatred people would have against a post office that kept people locked up in the back room, and lost them for weeks at a time, or forever. Imagine that was your family member locked up in the back of the post office, while you argued with the people at the front desk.

You say well it is like medicaid, only the dirtbags have to deal with it. It sucks for the criminals, as it should. Actually, it is more like NHS in Britain, universal healthcare. You have to pay for it. It is supposed to be locking up dangerous criminals to protect you, but it doesn't. It can easily falsely accuse you or your family member of something, and lock you up based purely on gossip, the impulse of the mob, like a political campaign. Do Republicans really want to push all their chips onto the table on a piece of garbage, that everyone who has actual experience with it hates? Because they won with it 50 years ago? Are Republicans this deluded to seek utopia through a government institution that locks up innocent people with the efficiency of the post office?

Republicans say if liberals don't like it, then we must like it. If criminals don't like it, then we must like it. In fact, we worship it. Just like Democrats suddenly love Mexican immigrants, because Trump hates them. So you push all your chips onto the table on something that sucks, and lose. Because you are totally deluded about what that thing actually is, and how it actually works.

For how many years will Republicans keep coming back to this criminal justice thing, like a bad poker player? What are they blaming their loss on today? George Soros interfered with the cards? Read this whole website, and find out how criminal justice really works in the United States.





If somebody died of cancer in 1975, does that mean we need to expand Obamacare significantly in 2021?

Why do Republicans, faced with political annihilation as a result of their pursuit of the utopia, blind themselves to the corruption and imperfection of government, only in this one area of criminal justice?

Republicans would never say someone starving automatically means we need more foodstamps, or any other non sequitur using every event to justify increased government power like liberals do. Snowstorm? We need more government control of industry to stop global warming.

So what is it about criminal justice? Criminal justice allows Republicans to lock down their base of people who want to shoot black people.

And liberals come back, and ignore the simplest problems and solutions and potential areas of improvement in criminal justice, and say criminal justice is a racial issue. We need to cure racism, we need to change human nature, to improve criminal justice. Neither side spends much time on justice for victims (who suffer greatly from imperfect criminal justice), separating guilty from innocent, or improving the process. Both sides spend all their time on the racial angle, which is what drives their voters.



This is why thousands of people who have never looked at the evidence, believe with confidence that Crosley Green was framed. This is how every single witness in Mandi May Jackson's trial lied, based on a collective belief in her guilt. I can offer people who have opinions of these cases plain evidence to contradict anything they believe, it doesn't matter. Both Mandi May Jackson's guilt, and Crosley Green's innocence, are the product of neither instinct or reason, but of imitation. Just like every other piece of human knowledge, as explained by Hayek.

Someone who looks at evidence to determine criminal guilt, is missing a large part of the process. Evidence is produced by humans to fit their preconceptions. It is not for nothing that drug trials are done double blind. Otherwise, the natural tendency of humans to repeat gossip, would replace any scientific discovery.

The evidence itself cannot persuade someone, such as in the case of Mandi May Jackson's innocence. It is who presents the evidence, and whether that person is previously given credibility and qualified for imitation, that determines whether the belief which claims to be supported by the evidence, is adopted. And if that person is given credibility for imitation, then he needs not even present any evidence. People will believe Crosley Green is innocent just because someone on TV said he is, and it fits their preconceptions.

And the evidence itself is determined by who is selected to produce the evidence, who is given credibility, and the beliefs of that group at the time they produce the evidence. Of course groups with competing and contradictory beliefs will produce contradictory evidence. So the evidence is a product of which group is assiged credibility to produce evidence, and the beliefs of that group.

Police who test a glove for DNA know where the glove was found, and know what belief different test results will support. So they will be religiously obligated to change where they say the glove was found, or even to avoid testing it, to synchronize any test result with their popular belief system. They will never let go of their collective belief, and will change any evidence necessary to fit it. As will witnesses change their stories. The evidence can be changed by how early in a criminal case competing narratives are disseminated and develop popularity.

Why is it wrong to have sex with your sister? I don't know. But I am 100% certain that it is wrong. People don't know things based on science. They know things based on imitation. That is how the production of evidence in a criminal case begins, with a collective or tribal belief held by police, copied from person to person. And then their evidence will primarily consist of idols constructed to manifest or reproduce or reinforce their previously held beliefs. It cannot be unique to Mandi May Jackson's case, it is human nature. Beliefs are a product of imitation, and evidence follows beliefs, not the other way around.

So any old criminal case where you look at the evidence, to see if you agree with the outcome based on the evidence, you are looking at the wrong process. You have to look at the beliefs of the parties who created the evidence, and how and when the beliefs were formed. Or if you are defending a criminal case at its beginning, the earlier and more widely you can disseminate your narrative, the more witnesses it will be supported by.

I have great evidence that Kim Hallock told the truth, and Crosley Green is guilty. I have evidence that every witness at Mandi May Jackson's trial lied. But that is irrelevant. In both cases, it is not a problem of evidence, but of religion.

It is not unique to crime. Half the population literally believes Donald Trump got more votes than Joe Biden, the other half believes Joe Biden got more votes. There is no role for evidence in religious imitation of beliefs. In both cases, the evidence is produced to support the beliefs. And changing people's beliefs is not a problem of persuading with evidence. It is, as Hitler taught, a problem of persuading with repetition.

IMITATION AND COMPLIANCE

Back in school, the best students were the best imitators. It doesn't matter why A squared plus B squared is C squared, it just is. This leaves the efficient human brain with a simpler problen to solve: Whom to imitate? Listen to everything your professor says, don't listen to anything mean Republicans say. Believe everything on left-wing dailybeast.com. Don't believe anything on right-wing breitbart.com. How does the human brain solve this problem?

I lived on the California coast with my girlfriend, and we would go surfing all the time. She met some people and we went over to their house to hang out. Without realzing it, I had just walked into a San Francisco cocktail party. So we were standing around with a little circle of people talking with our cocktails, and I mentioned that I listened to Rush Limbaugh, and maybe that I disliked abortion or maybe something about policing or something.

The girl standing across from me got a weird look on her face. She said in sort of a hesitant sentence, like she was more thinking to herself than talking to anyone, "I think that... I am going to... have to stop talking to you... now." And she rotated stiffly in place, and walked away. She flipped a switch and turned me off, based on a shibboleth, more or less. I thought this is awesome, such a simple system.

When we were kids and personal computers first came out, there were text adventure games. They might say something like "You see a hole." So you would type "look hole." And the game would say "You fell in the hole and died." So we would write little programs to play a joke on our friend Jeff. My program would ask "What is your name?" And if the first letter the guy typed was "j" the program would say "You are an idiot." Then we would say hey Jeff, come over and try out this cool adventure game. Jeff would be leery and type "john" instead of his real name. And it would still work and say "You are an idiot."

So after the San Francisco cocktail party, I went home and made a little program that asked things like "Are dolphins good? Are guns good? Is abortion good?" And if you answered any question wrong, the program would say "I think I am going to have to stop talking to you, now." The program had a little list, dolphins good, guns bad, and so on. If you answered all the questions right, it would classify you as trusted, and start imitating you. So if the next thing you said is "murder is good", it would add that to its list, and imitate you. If the next person then said "murder is bad" it would say "I am going to have to stop talking to you, now."

Imitation is the most efficient way a human being can learn and become a productive and well-adjusted citizen. But it becomes a problem with the meme where people say black kids just need to comply with police, do exactly what they say, and the police won't shoot you. Because police are your adversaries. They literally want to ruin your life. This creates a conflict with the simple way human brains are designed to work. It creates a "Simon Says" game, that kids are going to lose.



The human brain is not really designed to operate based on reason, and discriminate between different instructions from the same person, as being both trusted and not trusted. It is designed to be cooperative or adversarial, and choose whom to be cooperative and adversarial with. Especially when you are "in custody", and you quickly learn to comply with every instruction or feel pain.

So you can say "black kids should comply, and stop when police say stop." But you can't then say "criminals would never confess to something they didn't do, and witnesses would never swear to seeing something they didn't see, just to be cooperative with police." Absolutely they would. An efficient productive well-adjusted human brain is programmed to recite or follow anything a cop says, just like the student with the best grades imitates his professor.

A student who disagrees with the professor fails, or gets shot. And so the majority of witness statements, and even confessions, are the product of imitation and cooperation, not fact or reason.

And then convictions are based on whether you trust police and distrust people with past drug arrests. Even if the cop tells you the sun is green. If the cop or the government employee says "this person is guilty" then you will say "guilty." Critical analysis of evidence and small details, play little part.

And Republicans are put in the awkward position of saying "cops who lie are good" and "people with past drug arrest who are falsely convicted of crimes are bad" and "people who don't like their family members being victimized by police are marxists." And "Trump won the election."

Being banned from Twitter is the best thing that could happen to Republicans.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I often hear about "actual innocence" in the appeals process. Appeals court judges don't want to intervene except in cases of actual innocence. The Innocence Project only wants you to send them cases of actual innocence. What this means is we have given up on the jury trial process. It has been hacked by prosecutors and laws and case law to convict the innocent. And so now it is up to the public, and to elected judges, to decide who is innocent or guilty.

One of the Grievances in the Declaration of Independence enumerating the "Usurpations" by the "King of Great Britain" was "For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury". The Bill of Rights includes "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury". So the jury trial was very important to the ideals of our country. It is not because jurors are smarter than judges. It is because a jury is the least corruptible by politics, by the dynamics of the local mob, and by tyranny of the local majority.

You can point to some things that destroyed jury trials. One is local regulation of police. Under Florida law, police are supposed to be investigated by their local employer. In practice that means they can lie without penalty, and often with reward, to predetermine the outcome of jury trials. Prosecutors can also lie and supervise perjury in jury trials, and The Bar is certainly not accountable to the voter, and is far more corruptible by politics and self interest than a jury. There is also Connick v Thompson which emboldened prosecutors that they can lie and hide evidence and break any rule to get a conviction, without any possible penalty.

In case law, it seems many left-wing judges tried to intervene to prevent juries from convicting undesirables for things other than the actual crime they are accused of, simply for being undesirable. The amount of things you are allowed to tell the jury about their past convictions are limited. You are not allowed to show evidence of their drug use in court. You are not allowed to call them liars to the jury. All these things were done to overcome the presumption by the jurors that the prosecutor is a good person who would not lie to them, and the defendant is an untermenschen.

In practice, this is combined with plea bargaining, and with other laws that allow prosecutors to let felons out of prison, and with all the new life sentences for a variety of crimes. The result is prosecutors can coerce felons with threats of life sentences, to commit perjury to convict the innocent. And the protections which judges designed for defendants, prevent defense lawyers from explaining to the jury what is happening in front of them, the flaws in the process. Untermenschen are protected by case law, made bulletproof. So prosecutors use the most dangerous sociopathic felons to make their case, with lies.

Coerced witnesses get double the protection. First they are protected by case law meant to protect criminal defendants from the bias of juries. Second, they are bolstered by the presumption of the honesty of the prosecution, and the idea that the State and the court system would not be crooked, would not knowingly put liars in front of you. The protection of criminal witnesses was meant to balance the benefit of the doubt given to the State. But in the case of coerced prosecution witnesses, the two layers of false credibility are added together, summed.

In essence, the defendant is presumed guilty. Police, and coerced felons, are basically allowed to lie a mountain of details that the defendant is guilty. There is no consequence for it, and they are rewarded by the gullible crime-oriented voter, who reads the terrible stories in the paper, and is happy for the increased conviction rate. And then the burden is on the defendant to prove he is innocent, by proving all the proof of his guilt is lies. And all the actual determination of innocence is done in front of an elected appeals court judge, after the taxpayer has spent millions and families have been destroyed.

It guarantees the conviction of whomever police pick, unless and until you can prove they are lying. It is not used all the time. It may be used in practice only when politically expedient, or on occasion to save police some slight embarrassment. It is like an "in case of incompetence break glass" type remedy. And no politician has much interest in ending it. Republicans have to be tough on crime. Democrats can't admit "systemic racism" could be fixed in one legislative session.

Too many now make a living off guilt being decided by politicized appeals-court judges, and the click-loving media. You should instead advocate penalties for perjury, and police and prosecutor misconduct, to restore the integrity of, and the locus of decisions to, the jury trial. Every time someone is deprived of a fair trial by lies, or the jury trial is hacked, it should be redone, and that should be the law, no matter how certain of guilt everyone else is. Nobody else gets to decide anyone is guilty, like vigilantes. That's what we fought the British for.



It takes more years and money than most people have, to use the appeals process. My friend has been locked up for four years, serving life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen, because every witness including police easily provably lied. 15 months after being convicted in a trial that still did not prove her guilt, because jurors broke the rules and went online, she still does not have an appeal written.

There is not an unlimited supply of functional lawyers, much less free ones. It will take 15 years total and ruin the lives of all her family, cost the taxpayer and citizens a fortune, and torture the victim's family for years, for the simple reason that there is no penalty or deterrent for police and prosecutors who lie, supervise and coerce lies, and fake evidence. If my friend were alone, she would have no chance. After a few years locked up, or even after just a few months, all the evidence and witnesses other than what the police lied and said happened, are gone.



Ask Jacob Blake's family.



My point was he is a shooting victim, and yet you would say there was no crime. You have "hands up don't shoot derangement syndrome". You asked how can there be a victim family with no crime. I pointed out Jacob Blake is a shooting victim with a family, and yet you would say shooting him was not a crime. But instead of engaging in dialog, you basically lost your mind and started ranting how black people need to be shot or in prison.



A moment ago, you said if someone is innocent, there are checks and balances. But now you are saying if Jacob Blake were framed for a crime he didn't commit, nobody should advocate for him. So you support police lying to sweep undesirables off the streets nazi style.

I am the one person. There are actually no checks and balances. What you don't know about criminal justice could fill two books, and I wrote them. One of the main things you don't know, is the criminal justice system is knowingly and intentionally used to lock up undesirables, who are innocent of the crime they are convicted of. They just use a scam to sweep the streets of anyone the papers can sensationalize as undesirable for clicks. You could actually read my websites seminolescam.com and cops2prison.org and learn something about the justice system, rather than just imagining.

The system is not "as liberal as its ever been." It is as screwed up as it's ever been. Liberals did a bunch of crazy things to pervert the system to let everyone out. Republicans do a bunch of stuff to lock up anyone they point the finger at, regardless of guilt or innocence. There are more things than ever before in our country, in place to frame people. This framing people is supported by 49% of voters to balance what they believe is the liberal situation. The result is being locked up has less to do with guilt or innocence or justice than ever before, and more to do with a crazy political tug-of-war. Your preconceptions of what is going on are just a myth like global warming.

A Quick History of Police Misconduct

People who have no personal experience with police misconduct, sometimes find it hard to believe. Are these police really all going to lie? It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, or maybe just some weasel who got caught. For people who doubt their neighbors' sanity for suspecting police of lying, I will provide a rough timeline of how police lying became accepted and defended in mainstream America.

1) OJ Trial, 1995 - This was the TV trial of our generation. For many young lawyers, the impeachment of cop Mark Furhmann's credibility as a racist provided a template for how to attack the credibility of police. For many Americans, the not guilty verdict of a man who they thought was obviously guilty, showed that defense lawyers were cheaters who were able to hack a flawed and weak process by going after police.

2) Ferguson, 2014 - The popular "Hands Up Don't Shoot" narrative of a cop killing an innocent black teenager, was not supported by forensic evidence or Obama's Justice Department. Big Mike Brown was on video robbing a convenience store. This drove the law-and-order crowd nuts. It radicalized defenders of police and prepared them for war, ready to reflexively defend police against any future accusations of misconduct.

3) Handcuffing the Police, 2016 - Heather Mcdonald, an academic polemicist with no experience in policing, wrote a book called "The War On Cops". In it, she argued that police being accused of misconduct, and attempts to hold police accountable, were making life hard for cops and discouraging policing. She said any restrictions on police behavior amounted to "handcuffing the police" and this in turn led to an increase in crime and death. People swallowed this whole based on nothing more than vanity, because it was consonant their self perception as defenders of good. They never bothered to look at crime rates in countries where police have absolute power. The Republican Party took this as a moral mandate that all accusations of police misconduct had to be attacked and suppressed, and the accusers smeared, and police had to be defended and insulated from any and all consequences zealously, to save lives and the suburban way of life.

4) 2020 Election - After perhaps 200 years of believing leftists were well-intentioned but naive, Republicans under Trump became consumed with vanity. They believed they were good and Democrats were evil. They adopted a tactic which they previously scolded leftists for, that they could use big government in the form of police, to bludgeon opponents with their utopian vision. The regulation of police is so intertwined with the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights, never before in American history was there ever a need for any government institution to regulate police at the state or local level. The regulator was the individual, the regulator was the accused, the regulator was the citizen of conscience. Republicans declared this only historical regulator of police illegitimate, and in doing so declared war on the common citizen. Anyone who so much as jaywalked, deserved whatever he suffered without complaint. Through this battle, Republicans sought to relive the glory and political success of their forebears, who took on the "rehabilitation and root causes" movement in the 1970's.

So today, the right of police to lie is literally held as sacred by many, a final bulwark, a thin blue line against the disintegration of society. It is just as strange and hard to believe, and just as real, as the worship of cows in India. Police literally must lie to protect us all and save the world from communists. And anyone who accuses police of any misconduct must be destroyed, to preserve our way of life.

Imagine being trapped in prison for 70 years for something that didn't happen, because a cult of people are too vain to ever admit being wrong.

Cop Cult Intellectual Refuses To Develop Perjury Statistics, Calls All Perjury Anecdotal



I am guessing more than 850K police and their supporters said Jacob Blake was reaching for a knife in his car, or some other statement they would now tell you is false. That must be the good 110% that doesn't commit perjury. I know, when the good guys break the 10 Commandments we don't call it perjury, we call it heroism. And you wonder why anyone would dislike a mob of armed big-government fanatics who think laws and morals apply to everyone but them.



Judges have already imagined. I don't believe any court, including the Supreme Court, would rule that any person with a felony warrant casually getting into a car can reasonably be perceived as an imminent threat, to police or bystanders. There were other things Blake did at other times, that may have been reasonably threatening at those times, most of which police were probably not aware of, and none of which applied when he was getting into that car. You had no reasonable basis to imagine he was reaching for a knife when he casually got in that car.

The many people who stated that Blake was known to be reaching for a knife in his car, many who claimed to have some evidence that he was, WERE LYING. Nobody actually knew that he was reaching for a knife. But others (like you just now) said there was a reasonable basis for police to fear he was reaching for a knife in his car, when no such thing actually happened. The police have released a statement, and it does not include a fear that he was reaching for a knife or other weapon in his car.

Neither Jacob Blake reaching for a knife in his car, nor police shooting him based on a reasonable fear that he might have been reaching for a knife in his car, is reality.



You threaten an imaginary anarchy that has never existed anywhere, except the imaginations of teenagers. There are many forms of human organization, from tribes to catallaxies. It is you who pray for this imaginary anarchy when you are criticized, like an ex girlfriend prays for the person who wanted to do better to be lonely.

Suppose a cop lies on the stand like this:

seminolescam.com/sirens

Is that law or "the opposite of law"? Is it at all possible to suggest that could be improved upon, and that lying cop should be punished? Is it possible to deter lying, or repair the outcome of those lies, without being called a criminal and communist, and without being threatened with violence as imagined in the mind of a teenager? Or do you look straight at criminal perjury - at lies used by the government to incite a mob against private citizens - and make no objection to that whatsoever, but then say to me when I complain about it "a law-abiding citizenry will equally indict you."



Regardless of what you or I may think, the first definition of "anarchy" which comes up online is "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

The Wikipedia entry is summarized as "Anarchy is the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy."

When you suggest a time and place where "might very definitely makes right" that is an authority and hierarchy. In actual times and places in history, that authority and hierarchy has been more complex than you suggest. Those complex organizations of force, alliance, and collective interest, have unique characteristics, and mostly have been named.

You might say anarchy leaves no records, so it would be hard for historians to analyze and name instances of it. But you would be defining anarchy as the space between authorities, a person walking alone in a remote uninhabited ancient forest. I would argue that space is small and fleeting, it is unnatural, and tends to disappear very quickly.

But you are not talking about that actual anarchy, you are talking about forms of government or social organizations where your values are not honored. "Might makes right" means you think those in power are doing wrong. Under that definition, any government whose actions your don't like is anarchy.

Words mean things. But in criminal cases, police think the precise truth is umimportant, and just want to say that the defendant should be locked up. You said "As for lying on the witness stand....that is a violation of law, and such violations have consequences if proven." It exists and I have proven it. But there is no authority or hierarchy to prove it and enforce those consequences.

When it comes to cops lying on the witness stand and victimizing the innocent, that is one place where something that fits the accurate definition of anarchy can be found. I would like to change that, and send those cops to prison. People tell me I am a commie, and throw lies and fluff at me. That is anarchy.



Spontaneous organization forms instantly even among prisoners and fish and other animals There is no "pre-government." Quite the opposite, primitive people feared larger societies would result in a loss of governance. And even today people with a primitive instinct call capitalism and remote government uncaring, and want to sit around a fire in the woods where they feel more comfortable and in control.

And regardless of what sick liars, enablers, accessories, and conspirators like you say. I have provided numerous examples of police commiting perjury on seminolescam.com. And no authority will do anything about it. Because the defendant is a weak incompetent hooker. And the cop who led the criminal conspiracy, was presented as LEO of the Year by a mighty politician. Add you to the team defending the crime, and what you are doing is " might makes right."





I know that you know police perjury is as common as baseball cards. What is the "policy and procedure" provided by the law to "introduce" proof of police perjury "into the system"?

Because I know when a stock goes up on volume before a merger announcement, the SEC investigates without waiting for a mob to demand it. Same as when a homeless person is found murdered or a crop of marijuana is found in a national forest. What you are defending is a system that actively rejects and ignores and refuses to acknowledge any evidence or examples of police perjury. And then tell the victims of police crime to call 1-800-EAT-S-H-I-T.



If police perjury were indeed rare, then my proof of it on the web would be more interesting than your baseball cards.

The assistant state attorney supervised half the lying. The editor of the justice section of the regional newspaper invented the fake accusation that half the witnesses picked up or were motivated by to lie, or which gave them cover in lying. The first time I went to the FDLE they told me it is the job of private attorneys to prosecute police. The private attorney in this case accepted a $100k retainer, then got cancer and couldn't work, then found her friend the evidence tech staged evidence, and her previous client lied as a witness. Rather than lose her retainer and house, she chose to accept a bribe that allowed her to keep her retainer and satisfy The Bar she had no conflict of interest, in exchange for her looking the other way. I tried to complain to The Bar and warn her client. But her client was sedated in isolation, and The Bar told me if the judge who knew nothing accepted the scam and the client who knew nothing didn't complain, then I have no legal right to contact a defendant held without bond. I went back to the FDLE and they told me to contact the Office of Executive Investigations. OEI told me to contact local internal affairs. IA won't answer or return calls or emails. The office of the elected state attorney who made the lying cop LEO of the Year lies in emails if they respond at all, and nobody will touch him because he is the Republican "tough on crime" star.

It is all a sick corrupt scam.



Yeah, 15 years and an entire family's life and money later, because one dumb cop fears no penalty for perjury.



I am curious what you base that on. Because it is a nice paragraph in a middle-school essay on the justice system. But my experience in the justice system as it actually exists, has nowhere actually been interested in the truth.

Every case I have gone to court for myself, police lied. One, a garbage truck crashed into me, and the driver admitted to it. Then his manager talked to a witness, and the witness said the driver was not in the garbage truck. Because the truck had a steering wheel on the passenger side where the witness couldn't see, and that is where the driver got in and out. The lies went from there.

I proved geometrically to the state trooper, who claimed to previously be an accident investigator, that I could not have crashed into the truck with the only impact being 5 inches in front of my back wheel. He said your back swung out when you turned away. I said only the part of my car behind the back wheel swings out. He said what is 5 inches?

Another a cop said he saw me driving somewhere illegal, and impounded my parked car. I knew he was lying, so I bought a long-hair wig, and went to the police station to complain. In court, he said he saw me driving with long hair, but that I cut my hair before coming to court. I told the cop I was going to get the transcript where I proved he was a liar. The cop told me the price of the transcript per page. He said everybody says that, but they don't actually get the transcript at that price and you won't either,

Another cop entered my Wyoming license plate wrong because it had vertical letters, and it came back belonging to a Cadillac. So he locked me in jail. When he figured out his mistake, he disassembled my car searching for anything he could accuse me of. Then he started to straight make stuff up, alleging crimes I had done or reports he got. Finally he let me go, and warned me he knew my car was stolen, and he was going to come find me as soon as he could prove it.

Another one, I loaned my friend my phone out my car window, and a cop tackled him thinking it was a drug deal. They took his money, I don't even remember. When I stepped out to try to get my phone back, they gave me a ticket for double parking. Then they made up some lies, and I tried to file a complaint. They said I could not file a complaint, only the guy they tackled and lied about could file a complaint. He was too scared to file a complaint, for fear to ever walk down the street again.

Another one, some people I didn't know brought a guest to their house with a really silly name. He was shooting a pellet gun out the window at a no parking sign, and got into an argument with some frat boys. The frat boys called the police, who asked him for his name. What he said was so silly, they asked me what his real name was. When I said the same silly name, they got angry and told me they were arresting me also for trying to shoot frat boys. When I complained to the DA that those cops were psycho, he said that is 90% of arrests around here, people who make a wise crack to those cops.

A big guy was my roommate for years in a college town where everyone smoked weed. A guy who sold weed knew him from high school, and would walk to our house and ask him for rides. I never saw the big guy buy or sell or smoke weed. I lived for months in a tiny house with the big guy and his girlfriend. Never saw them buy or sell or smoke weed, or hang out with anyone who smoked weed. I don't smoke weed or care, so they had no reason to hide it from me. One morning we went shopping downtown. Stayed downtown all day, went to a comedy club that night. Didn't buy or sell or smoke weed.

At the comedy club, girlfriend was drunk, four guys at the next table were drunk. Guys made a joke the girlfriend didn't like, they exchanged words, she threw beer on them. The four drunk guys flipped over their table and jumped us. The bouncer told us to leave, "just run" so we did. Police were making arrests involving "gang activity." Police saw my friend running on the sidewalk, they thought he was part of the gang arrests. They tackled him and planted weed on him.

Talking about what happened, his lawyer says "The four guys at the next table said the big guy did crime X, that's you." I said huh? I'm not the big guy. He said yes you are. I don't remember what X was, the big guy denied doing it. I guess the plan was to say I did the crime the four guys accused the big guy of doing, so police had no cause to arrest him and find the weed on him, which they planted on him.

I have more like that. None of that is a big deal. But this idea that cops are such serious people interested in the truth, does not fly.

Now real crime, murder, I have been to two murder trials recently. And I got almost all of the discovery, and had some inside information. Neither side said anything remotely resembling the truth at trial. They were clearly accustomed to having nothing to do with the truth, and their peers were accustomed to it also. The rules of evidence and case law would not even permit you to speak the truth, regarding the most important elements in the trial.

Ever since then, I have been looking at other criminal cases with a skeptical eye, watching or following trials, reading motions and reports, looking at discovery and exhibits and newspaper stories. In all of it, I don't see the parties placing any special weight or value on the truth. The truth has no value in the justice system just by being true. The truth has zero abstract value to people in the justice system. Prosecutors want to convict, defense attorneys want to create doubt. Neither cares whatsoever about the truth, or expects the other to, and the judge doesn't even bother to worry about it.

If you really believe there is truth, or a value for truth in the justice system, you should read my book. Because in my experience, you cannot get that belief from getting actual evidence, actual discovery, and watching actual trials. What you said sounds more like a fairy tale to me. So I am wondering what you based it on. Have you ever gotten all the evidence in a case, read all the depositions, looked at all the video, and watched every minute of a real trial in person?



Suppose citizens in a democracy decide not to simply accept having no knowledge and move on, because it is important to learn things about the justice system as a whole. Suppose they have a responsibility to discover how often their employees are committing perjury to victimize their innocent fellow citizens. Maybe the citizens don't like losing close elections, and they don't like the families of innocents who have been victimized by police voting for the other party. What kind of institution or policy changes would you recommend, to help voters get that kind of information and research and statistical estimates of the frequency of police perjury, to improve or adjust the product as necessary, to protect the innocent and win elections?

What are the significant fail-safes to deter, or even record and report instances of police perjury, like the instances I have described? I noticed you quoted an irrelevant data set, the percentage of federal defendants found not guilty. You appear to concede you have no detailed statistics on police perjury or felons being coerced to testify or anything else, which would enable you to refine and optimize the justice system, to satisfy the voters.

Or suppose there is no institution or policy that could provide any insight into, or estimate, of the frequency of police using perjury to victimize the innocent. How would you weigh into policing policy decisions, the fact that all policing manufactures a cumulative population of victimized innocents of an unknowable size? Would you simply consider this accumulating population of victimized, unserved innocents, and their families and sympathizers all behaving and voting with a grudge as nihilists, as irrelevant to policy decisions? If you can't know the size of the cost, then should policy decisions assume the cost is zero?



So you have no idea how often police (or even coerced felons) commit perjury, because there is no compulsory central reporting to scrutinize. And you are happy having no idea, because you have a lot of convictions.

What if 90% of convictions overturned by new video, included police allegations that the subject attacked police, proven false? Would you say hey, maybe police running rampant with false claims that people attacked them, is undermining the credibility of justice?

I know people like you will have an impulse to argue with that specific example. And you don't want anybody to have any real data, and real examples to use. Because for whatever reason, you want police to be able to break the law.



Police and prosecutors refuse to write down real data at the source, and fight all efforts to require reporting, and punish reporting failures. They don't even use good arguments against justice regulation and reform, because they are not honestly saying what they believe. They just whine that the taxpayer can't afford it, or it is not fair compared to some other profession, or it will take us back to the 1970's "rehabilitation and root causes" era, putting your family at the mercy of rapists and carjackers.

What if people "outside the Criminal Justice System" are rioting in the streets, and voting for socialist nihilists like Andrew Gillum who are on the precipice of taking over the country, because they are not satisfied with the product? Would you agree to develop quality-control statistics then, like every other organization that experiences customer dissatisfaction and loses market share?

I know the answer is no, you will drink the Koolaid, lose elections, and die, to defend cops victimizing the innocent. With some unknown and, when you get your way, unknowable frequency, because you like cops breaking the law to get convictions. And if some people are disgruntled, screw them, because like De Tocqueville said, they and their lowlife families and sympathizers don't get to vote.



Yes I am going to start my own SEC and also license doctors from my home office.



Okay I want to put in the name of cop, defendant, or reporter, and look up an uninvestigated perjury report. What is the web address?

Real Justice Crosley Green

Kim Hallock told the truth. In the below video, I spend about 100 minutes in and around a pickup truck next to an abandoned orange grove, with a copy of Kim Hallock's 140-page deposition. It is very tedious. I reach two main conclusions:

1) The whole story is true, there was a black guy in the park who drove to the orange grove, except

2) At the very end, Kim changes the story to hide that she was raped.

Unless you are willing to take the time to go through the deposition (click to download), it is hard to have an accurate opinion about it.







I explain that in my analysis of her deposition in my video. I would not have made a 100-minute video, if I believed I could convince you her story was very accurate in less than 100 minutes.

The evidence is her behavior, and the fact that her whole story is very accurate, according to my analysis. Except she changed from the true story at the very end, and had Chip shooting and her fleeing immediately, when almost certainly the door was shut at that time, and Chip scooted over to the door and opened it a tiny bit later. At the time the black guy was telling her what he was going to do, my analysis shows the door was shut, and Chip probably did not shoot until the black guy let her go, or was distracted a tiny bit later.

Are there notarized timestamped photos of every part of her body to prove she was not bruised, and that no photos were discarded? I am a little puzzled how you would know she had no bruises. I agree most people don't know that what a cop says he saw, is not necessarily true. But in this case people are openly accusing police of being misleading. When the lawyer taking her deposition led her to say she was bruised on the arms, she said no. But she said she was "sore all over."

I believe she went to David Stroup's house to keep her secret. And it is very normal for boyfriends and family to keep a rape secret, and to feel it is your own fault. David Stroup probably told Chip's cop uncle Dan Wilmer. And then Dan Wilmer and whoever knew, shut down any further inquiry, to protect their special little girl who worked at the courthouse. They never even told Mark Rixey, they just told him to let it go. And Kim herself probably hid any bruises, she did not want her father and brothers and gossipers to know she was raped.

If they were hiding she was raped, they would certainly not make a record of her being bruised. Bruises would conflict with the sanitized story they were presenting. But I don't believe they even looked, and she chose not to show them.

It is standard for police to leave out evidence, or fail to find evidence, which conflicts with their initial narrative, or with initial witness statements. In my experience, police usually want to find less physical evidence. Because most cases are built on witness testimony, and coerced witness testimony.

A juror cannot absorb a story put together in little tidbits of prints and photographs, each presented by a different technician over several days. A juror becomes sleepy. A juror can only absorb a story told in a single breath by a normal person. So in practice, physical evidence is only used to try to punch holes in the stories told by imperfect witnesses with imperfect memories, to create reasonable doubt. Crime Scene Investigation makes great TV. But it makes for not guilty verdicts.

It is so easy to get a witness, or coerce a co-defendant to tell a story in a plea deal. And once you do that, the witness telling that story on the stand is enough to get a conviction. In real life, that story is usually inaccurate. And fragments of physical evidence only introduce inconsistencies.

If you think central Florida cops don't have a mandate from the local political establishment to lie all day to get the desired outcome, you should visit my website seminolescam.com.

---------------

You say Kim Hallock being raped was never been suggested, mentioned, in more than 30 years. But I point to the fact that you have not watched my video, it is not so easy to watch a 100-minute video. And the analysis of the 140-page deposition used in the video, took even longer. So even in 30 years, how many people are actually going to read through that 140-page deposition, and really analyze it?

It is human nature to want quick answers, and to sell simple stories. I could not get anyone to read that 140-page deposition if I wanted to. The reality is that court cases produce so much paperwork, thousands of pages of discovery, that not even the lawyers go through all of it. Maybe one person 10 years later at the Innocence Project actually cares enough to go through it.

It may even be intentional, the government uses their advantage in the sheer number of employees to churn out paperwork. And in doing so they create an advantage, by overwhelming the one or two lawyers paid a paltry sum by the taxpayer to go through it all. You are supposed to disclose everything, but you can hide things by the sheer volume of paperwork you dump on the public defender or registry attorneys.

So I take the opposite argument, why would this come out in 30 years? How many people even knew? It is possible only Kim and Chip and the guy who did it knew. But Chip's family and Kim's family have no incentive to stir the pot by calling their daughter a liar a year later. Nobody has any incentive to admit that information was hidden.

It also took many years for Prosecutor White's notes about Kim changing her story and the cop suspicions to come out. But everyone has an agenda. They want to prove police are racists, or Kim is a liar. So their investigations begin with an agenda, designed to find evidence to support that agenda. This idea that Kim was raped and hid it does not really help anyone clearly. It does not prove she is evil or cops are racists or Crosley Green is innocent. It just proves Rixey and Clarke have no experience with rape victims, and cops were willing to lie to protect a family member, quite mundane.

And it is so longwinded to prove it, it does not even sell well. How many will ever follow the story I am telling? So it is an oddity of value to nobody, except someone who likes finding truth that probably nobody will ever pay attention to. And again I ask you, how many will spend the time on the deposition like I did? Can you even show me a video of someone else in a pickup truck by an abandoned orange grove with a toy gun like I did?

If nobody else ever even took the deposition out to a pickup truck in 30 years, you have your answer. Maybe one, two, three people did? Ten people?

---------------

The 18th Judicial Circuit framed my friend for murder. My friend is serving life without parole from age 21 for a crime that did not happen. The 18th Judicial Circuit is known for coerced testimony, hidden evidence, and lies lies lies. So I was given this deposition with the expectation that I would find lies lies lies, and a story that didn't even happen.

I came looking for one thing, with an agenda to find lies, and found the opposite. I certainly did not expect a 20-year-old girl to talk for so long and everything fits together. And I certainly did not come looking for something to make a video about, or to post on facebook. I am not a big maker of videos. I wrote a true crime book about my friend's story, and someone else made it into a podcast, not me. I am not even a member of the facebook group for the book I wrote. I did not put my name on the book, and nor is my name Tracey. I am not a self promoter.

But I did find something sort of like my friend's story. My friend was a 21-year-old girl who got taken advantage of sexually, and was framed for murder. You look her up, Mandi May Jackson, you are going to tell me that young girl Mandi May is a murderer. Just like people are telling me Kim Hallock is a murderer. So what I found out is Kim was right to hide the parts about sex and being raped. People like to frame young females for murder. People in Central Florida are not that different from people in Iran. They want to stone a girl to death for being a slut.

---------------

I spent 100 minutes arguing that Kim Hallock's deposition is surprisingly accurate. Building on that, I made a 15-minute video where I use a stopwatch to prove Kim Hallock was most likely raped. If you accept that Kim really ran around from the driver to the passenger door, the black guy would have had a minimum of 27 seconds to rape her, and most likely did.







How do you know Kim never mentioned being raped to her parents? My assumption is that she did tell David Stroup, but hid it from her parents. She went to David Stroup's house specifically to hide it from her parents, as I explained in my video. Maybe he keeps a good secret. And if her parents did eventually learn about it, what is their incentive to tell any stranger? Why would her parents want strangers to know that she was raped, or her favorite color, or anything else? Why is Kim going to come along years later and say she hid being raped, and bring all kinds of craziness on her, in addition to getting the stigma, and having to go to a new trial or the guy she presumaby thinks is guilty being set free.

If Rixey or Clarke said Chip was completely lucid it would mean nothing to me. Cops around here are complete idiots who also lie all day without consequence, based on whatever stupid little emotional agenda they have. If Chip was so lucid, why didn't he stand up and walk out of there? One reason might be if she did run over his legs, and they hid that. I provided my complete explanation of Chip's psychology and motive in my video, to answer those questions for anyone who wants to know my theory.

Once again, I ask how you would know Kim had no bruises, if she hid being raped. She was a tan girl who went to the beach, it was a season when she could wear long sleeves. People do not automatically bruise when they are sufficiently submissive, just like you can grab everything in a room and leave no fingerprints.

But there is a deeper problem running through everything you say. You assume that criminal justice is some rational utopia, where everyone knows everything. (I guess if you think Crosley Green is innocent, he was framed because of racism.) I assume you have never been accused of a serious crime, or known someone who was, to where you had an insider vantage point. It is all lies and gossip and sloppiness, and covering up lies and gossip and sloppiness, and confusion.

Cops lie and forget stuff and straight leave stuff on the ground, and cover it up later. People at the gas station hide that she bought rolling papers, or invent theories of what happened, which witnesses hear, and later recite as facts. People read stuff in the paper, and then go up on the stand and swear to it like they witnessed it.

One group of people who know it is a crazy mass of lies and confusion is police. That is why they have to hide and lose and fail to find evidence that contradicts their initial narrative or witness statements. Because it is such a huge mass of lies and confusion and gossip and misinformation all sworn to as the truth, they literally have to cheat to end up with something that is consistent when they get to trial.

I thought about reading the trial transcript. But it is worth zilch, compared to the deposition. I have sat in criminal trials in the 18th Judicial Circuit, and the prosecutors coached the witnesses to swear to the prosecution narrative, regardless of what the truth is. It is not rare for prosecutors to hide notes or information about what witnesses really witnessed, it is standard. Because there is zero penalty for hiding things and lying, and in fact they are rewarded for getting convictions. (I assume this increased after Connick v Thompson.) So the trial transcript is unlikely to provide enough additional insight about what happened in the orange grove, to be worth digging through.

Kim's deposition is the best, least polluted, source of information about what actually happened. It didn't have to be that way. I expected it wouldn't be, I expected it to be total garbage. But having gone through it, I know it is infinitely more useful than some much shorter thing a cop wrote up who was not even there. Nobody else was there, and by the time of the trial the prosecutor had coached Kim. So it is 140 pages that makes all other evidence look like nothing.

Police reports that don't fit the initial narrative will be hidden, or rewritten. Police reports that I am able to get 30 years later are extremely sanitized and massaged to get the conviction. Are you not aware that under Florida law, police who commit crimes like throwing away evidence, are investigated by their own police station? Nobody else in Florida has jurisdiction to do it. So cops can literally hide and lie and change whatever they want, because the people who are supposed to regulate it, are captive to the exact same set of incentives and the same politics as the cops themselves.

Why is it so hard to understand that if Chip's cop uncle Dan Wilmer found out Kim was raped and Chip let it happen, and they were buying weed which would look so bad in court that case law wouldn't even let you mention it in front of the jury in Florida, he would tell the other cops to just leave her crazy story be, and they would do what he asked, because it is all in the family?

I live next to an abandoned orange grove, and it makes perfect sense to me Kim would not know the way back to somewhere that somebody else drove to. I can't even find the way back to places I drive myself off road, it happens all the time. I even lost my drive shaft on I-95 by Vero Beach, I pulled off on the shoulder right before the exit. And when I went back 20 minutes later to get it, I could not find the exact spot I pulled off onto the shoulder. Every Christmas and Fourth of July my neighbor throws a party, and he puts a little sign at the end of his street that says "barbecue ->". I have driven there twice or three times. I cannot find my way back to that house without that sign, because I don't know what street it is. Even though it is literally probably less than 1,500 feet away from me, and I have driven there several times when the sign was there to tell me which street it was.

But if you are saying you think Kim made up the whole story, there was no black guy, I have established in my video that is next to impossible. She left out a specific subset of things, the things you would not tell your parents if Chip had not been murdered.

I assume you have never been involved in the criminal justice system, because you have a utopian notion of mankind. Other than this one girl Kim, I guess, who must be the only liar.

Put simply, if we don't have a photograph of Kim with bruises, then we don't get to know if Kim had bruises or not. If we don't have a photo of tire tracks, we don't get to know if there are tire tracks or not. We don't know what the entrances to roads around there looked like in the dark. Jurors in the 18th don't get to know that stuff, and we 30 years later certainly don't get to know that stuff. I assume this is one of the reasons New York passed a law giving defendants quick access to witnesses and crime scenes. Police are not reliable. They could have a photo of tire tracks and say they came from the orange grove, when they came from the baseball field. They could know who the cashier was at the gas station, and throw away that name because she dirties up Kim's story.

In my friend's case, they had pictures of two groups of blue rubber gloves, and the police report said they found two different groups of gloves, one group with apparent blood stains. In the CSI report there was only one group of gloves. They sent out DNA swabs labeled "gloves" and "blue gloves". At one trial, the CSI said there were five gloves total. At another trial, she said there were eight gloves total. Based on the pictures, she definitely did not find the gloves where she said she found them. The CSI completely invented, on the stand at trial, where she took the swabs from, which swabs from which glove, different from any prior information. The prosecutor used those intentionally vague labels to fit his narrative, after they got the DNA results, when they made their plan before the trial.

I remember watching a prosecutor tell jurors about circumstantial evidence. He said "Suppose there is a cabin and a fresh snow, and there are footprints to the cabin, but none leading away. You can infer someone is in that cabin." I wanted to say no, maybe the cop just didn't see the footprints leading away. Maybe they went out the back. Maybe the footprints to the cabin were from the first cop, who the second cop, the CSI with the camera, doesn't know is already in the cabin. Maybe the defendant is a devious criminal who walked backward through his own footprints like the kid in "The Shining", to frame an innocent person.

Police are imperfect sources of information. Trials are even worse. It is normal for jurors in the 18th Judicial Circuit to have no idea what actually happened. There is zero penalty or consequence for perjury on the stand in the 18th Judicial Circuit, whether by cop or witness. I have seen people, the judge, look straight at a person committing obvious perjury, and just get a weird grimace on her face. Nobody even accuses anyone of perjury. A large percentage of trial convictions are based on the coerced testimony of felons, drug dealers, whether as co-defendants or even jailhouse confession so-called witnesses. So neither prosecutors nor defense want penalties for perjury. You are not allowed to call someone a liar in front of the jury. Jurors just assume prosecutors and judges would not put a liar in front of them, but there is no person or institution or mechanism to stop it.

So I would be a fool to launch a rocket off any of that stuff. But I was surprised, that this deposition is worth more than I thought it would be. It is a single flickering candle, in a dim world.

---------------

Since your questions merit a response, I will tell you: Where I live next to this abandoned orange grove, even after a year sometimes I could not find my own street at night. Many times I drove past it. Many times I turned off too soon. Finally I began to rely on it being the only one with a light. But now the light is burnt out, and another street has a light. So I tried to do it by mailboxes, but a lot of streets have mailboxes. Also since it is a dirt road, I can look at the wear in the road, how overgrown is it? But I am already past the street by the time I can see that. As of today, I do it by the signs people post on the telephone pole, advertising home improvement services or whatever. There are the most signs by my road. The place Kim was, had none of that, no markers for her to remember what road she came off.

Kim driving out of there in a hurry, and not knowing where she drove out of, fits being raped and fleeing, better than any other narrative. If she were this brilliant liar who left the shoestring, why not memorize the place yourself in case you want to go back and hide it? If it was some place she and Chip knew of and drove there themselves, some other kids would know that, or she would wait longer and give right directions, or she would get Stroup to drive her out there to meet the cops so she could make sure they weren't getting suspicious and snow them with lies.

In my second video, I demonstrate why I believe Kim did see Chip get shot in the chest. And I believe later, she was ashamed to admit she left him there, when she found out he was still alive. All evidence is she thought he was dead, and she in fact drove over him. She was stoned and in shock and paranoid and had just been raped, and above all didn't want her parents to know it was all her fault for hanging out in the park after dark which they told her not to do. I cannot imagine why people assume any behavior of a stoned young girl who has just witnessed a murder is a product of rational planning and thinking and strategizing.

You yourself are very quick to think that I, a stranger, am irrational in my conclusions. And yet you assume that Kim's actions were rational products of true knowledge that was in her mind. So that her actions therefore can be used to infer the truth in a logical way, 1,000 miles away and 30 years later. Suppose I were so crazy and stoned right now, and so angry at you for not believing me, that I drove out to Cocoa tonight, thinking I might still find blood on the ground. What rational, sinister motive would you assume I really had, that I must be hiding? What rational reason would you invent for me driving out there?

I just happen to have photos of three streets in my neighborhood by an abandoned orange grove. Could you tell the difference between these three streets with no street signs, at night, if you drove out of one in the dark without even knowing where you were when you drove out, in a hurry because you were scared of rape and gunshots?



What if finding the abandoned orange grove were like this?





I am not an ER doctor (and neither are Clarke and Rixey medical or psychiatric experts). And I can't know the exact amount of time from when Chip was shot, to when he spoke and he died. But let's say it was 60 minutes. If he was "perfectly lucid" at 56 minutes, and he died at 60 minutes, then he could stand up and walk at 2 minutes.

Unless Kim ran over his legs, which she thought she did. The medical examiner does not get her job by saying what people with heroin mugshots want her to say. The medical examiner gets her job by saying what the elected State Attorney wants her to say. The medical examiner at my friend's trial misled the judge and jury that the victim was alive in a coma for two days, when in fact he died the day he jumped off his balcony. Because they wanted to hide that he was in organ donation for two days before anyone examined him, because the witnesses who saw him jump did not hear a gunshot.

I think very likely Kim did run over Chip's legs. According to my reconstruction of how he fell out, she would have run over them if he did not move them. And she thought she ran over them. Chip may have had some bruises on his knees from having sex in a car or kneeling at the baseball field. But if big sand tires roll over your ankles, they might not cause any bruises. My lifted truck never set off the weight alarm at the drive thru that told people I was ready to order. So I always had to drive up to the window and shout.

So if sand tires rolled over his ankles while he was face down, it might twist his ankles or hyperextend them so he couldn't walk. But you couldn't tell without doing an MRI to see there were fractures or inflammation or something. They are not going to spend $5k or whatever, to do an MRI on a dead guy's ankles in 1989.

So it is not necessarily a case that they hid it or lied. It is just a case that Clarke and Rixey don't know jack.

I will draw also on my own experience with a chest injury. Last winter I tripped on a root in the dark, and flew forward onto a 30-inch metal fence post like in this picture. I put my hands out to break my fall, but they never touched ground, the fence post broke my fall into my chest. It hurt for months, and still sometimes hurts. Near the same time I had the virus, and my heart stopped six times and I could hardly breath for weeks. But through all of that, I was always able to stand up from lying on the ground and walk (when I regained consciousness).



Here is me getting up off the ground and walking with my hands behind my back, in the first take. I am far older and fatter and less flexible than Chip Flynn. And you can hear me breathing. My heart still hurts from the virus. I may die in less than an hour from that shot!





So if Chip wasn't able to walk out of there 2% of the time lapse from getting shot to dying, either Kim ran over his ankles, or he wasn't lucid. So Clarke and Rixey are wrong about something, or there is some missing information.

I'm open to the idea that Chip's ankles got run over, and he didn't tell them or was much worse off than they let on. So why not make Rixey the devious one? Any cop should know how to do a "Why don't you tell us what happened before your friend tells us" setup.

Rixey: Why don't you tell us what really happened here?

Kim: I don't want to talk about it.

Rixey: Clarke is out there talking to Chip. He's not angry at you, you didn't run over him. He just said he wants to go home. So why don't you tell us what really happened here?

Kim: I don't want to talk about it.

Rixey: Well, Clarke is out there talking to Chip, so why don't you tell us what happened here before Chip tells us?

Kim: I don't want to talk about it.

Rixey: You know what, he's dead! So why don't you tell us what really happened here?

Kim: I don't want to talk about it.

---------------

According to my analysis, there would only be one shell casing on the ground, from the one shot that shot Chip in the chest. All the other shots were Chip shooting air with a revolver. Why would they not find the shell?

Almost all pistols eject right, so the shell would not have gone into the pickup bed. But police are not perfect. And unless they had a metal detector, they almost certainly would not find the shell. The first reason is Chip may have stood up and walked a few yards. I believe Kim ran over his legs. But big sand tires from the back of a lifted pickup, would not cause a severe injury, and maybe not any injury.

But even if they knew within 50 feet where the shell should be, they would not find it without a metal detector. Because abandoned fields in Florida have an airy layer just below the surface, that is several inches thick. It is a loose open sponge of like dead roots. Metal drops into and through it, and you can't find it by eye. I have lost so many bolts and metal parts, even when I saw exactly where they fell, that I bought a metal detector.



---------------

Every time I accidentally dig further into this case, it further supports my conclusions without wanting to.

For example, I was bothered that Crosley is described as a drug dealer, with no mentioned history of violence at age 30. Everyone I have known who was capable of such a fearless and aggressive robbery, was already a psycho in high school. Rather than committing their first such act at age 30, they have mellowed out by age 30. There would be some evidence of them being a psycho or attacking someone in high school, or at some point before first doing it age 30. Then I found out Crosley was convicted of robbery in 1977.

I imagined Kim must be leaving out the sex. Then I read somewhere that she did in fact go to Mims Park first and have sex. I thought she must be going to the baseball park with the sheriff by the black neighborhood to buy weed. That is also supported by this idea I learned of later, that she went to Mims Park first. Why go to the baseball park if you already had sex? There is even a "drug deal gone bad" narrative mentioned somewhere I found later.

Most recently, I was reading some of the prosecutor's appeal paperwork, and it states that Clarke and/or Rixey changed their statements meaningfully 20 years later.

Motion For Stay Pending Appeal

So Clarke and Rixey are unreliable. Chip was found still face down in the position Kim left him, having not even rolled over, and moments from death. And yet he was perfectly lucid, not just perhaps dreaming he wanted to go home?

The appeals prosecutor said Diane Clarke and Mark Rixey did not even talk to Kim. But it may be they did, and they were encouraged to leave it out of their police reports. If so, instead of going after this poor girl Kim, you should be demanding that scumbags like Clarke and Rixey who write false police reports be prosecuted, instead of rewarded by their supervisors.

---------------

I would love to say Kim Hallock lied, just like a 19-year-old girl lied to give my friend life without parole, for a crime that didn't happen, in the 18th Judicial Circuit. But Kim Hallock told the truth. I don't think the problem is girls lie, or the solution is in the appeals courts.

A lot of things have combined to explode the population of innocent people in prison. The left discredited itself with a flawed philosophy of rehabilitation and root causes. The Supreme Court said sheriffs could coerce inmates to claim other inmates confessed. The Supreme Court said prosecutors have the rights of the King of England to victimize the innocent in Connick v Thompson. New felony murder laws, and life sentences for drugs, made it easier to coerce sophisticated felons and drug users who understand how to game the system, to lie about first-time offenders and incompetents in court. Left-wing judges wrote a lot of case law to protect felons and drug users from having their testimony impeached for being felons and drug users. This was intended to balance the false presumption by the jury that police and prosecutors have good will and tell the truth. In practice, this case law actually sums these two layers of false credibility, when prosecutors coerce drug felons to lie in plea deals. After Mark Fuhrmann and Big Mike Brown, Heather Mcdonald wrote a book telling Republicans they had a moral mandate to cover up police misconduct, and insulate police from consequences for misconduct, to save lives. Case law became perverted to where judges are selected for freakish memory, not for wisdom or judgment. Opposing factions push to convict or release everyone, and the role of the jury in determining who gets locked up has been diminished.

Through all of that, there was a Republican and suburban and upper-class majority of the electorate, that prevented fixing any of those root causes through the legislature. So the focus turned to appeals courts, and case law in the Supreme Court, and to dealing with cases of false conviction one-by-one. Today that has changed. A sufficient number of people have seen their friends and family members victimized by a justice system that seeks to maximize convictions and punishment, and the suffering of the underclass, rather than discriminate between innocent and guilty. The majority now sees there are problems, and wants to improve the product. So I think it is time to turn the focus away from appeals and Supreme Court cases, to legislative and structural changes to punish police and prosecutors for misconduct, and deter perjury in coerced testimony and plea bargains.

The mob will do everything they can before and after the jury trial to make it irrelevant, and get their way. The mob can never fix a case, because they can only act like a mob. The best-intentioned people on the Internet, will do evil without wanting to. They will usually do worse than the jury trial. The jury trial was designed to take it out of their hands. So the jury trial needs to be embraced, and repaired and rehabilitated and restored to be the best it can be, the most sincere and independent it can be. And the damage to the jury trial, in the form of coerced testimony and cops lying without penalty, and crooked prosecutors convicting innocents without penalty and in fact with a reward, needs to be fixed.

---------------

KIM HALLOCK: PUT UP OR SHUT UP

I am tired of people literally inventing evidence to prove Kim Hallock killed Chip Flynn. Like insisting it is strange she couldn't find her way back to an unmarked dirt turnoff where she had never been before, and fled out of in the dark.

Nowhere has anybody put up a single website with all the proof, all the photos, all the evidence and testimony in the Crosley Green case, like I have done for my friend who was falsely convicted at seminolescam.com

The reason they haven't is because they don't want to. It is all flimsy. It is not a serious story. And they don't want it to be, it is not their business. It is a human interest story about a mean little girl who framed "a black guy." And that is the little story they want to tell to sell ads for their podcast or TV show whatever. An actual story with actual evidence would be tedious, it wouldn't work, nobody would listen for that long.

The reason this bothers me is because there are real problems with the US criminal justice system, and false convictions. There are problems the Innocence Project lists, like bad lineups, and coerced witnesses. Heart strummers like Erin Moriarty distract from that truth, when they look right past a crooked prosecutor, and look right past police who changed their sworn story 20 years later, to blame a stoned teenage girl for the problems in the US criminal justice system.

Erin Moriarty even embraces these known liars as sources for her story. The cops said Chip Flynn was lucid, never mind he was moments from death and still in the exact position Kim last saw him, having not even rolled onto his back. The prosecutor said the suspicions should have been examined. Erin Moriarty cozies up to these known liars who help her sell TV ads, and then says "Why won't Kim Hallock whom the mob accuses of murder and was probably raped, let me interview her and create some huge event I can make my name and a fortune reporting on? What is she hiding?"

Stoned teenage girls are not the achilles heal of the US criminal justice system. But news promoters who whip up a mob with innuendo, and feel perfectly comfortable doing so with incomplete tidbits of evidence, are a major problem with the US criminal justice system.

We have clowns like Tim Curtis who show up and claim to be an actual witness to whatever the latest gossip is. People like that are tools of the mob, a real problem for the criminal justice system. Erin Moriarty elevates people like that on her show.

I literally have more Crosley Green testimony, arguments, and analysis posted at my website cops2prison.org than either John Alberto Torres or Erin Moriarty have posted anywhere, and more than anyone seems interested to post on Wikipedia. So I challenge any whiney little itch who wants to run with a mob and cry all day that Kim Hallock is a murderer: Put up a complete and detailed website with ALL the evidence like I did at seminolescam.com, or shut up forever.

You are doing a disservice to the justice system, and to thousands of innocent people locked in prison, with your cheezy little stories. You are an embarrassment to the innocence movement. When has Erin Moriarty even advocated there should be some legal penalty for a prosecutor who hides discovery? She won't, because the prosecutor is her buddy, he gives her statements she can print. And Kim Hallock gives her nothing, and that is how you are decided guilty by the news media in Erin Moriarty's world.

---------------

And I also want to clear something up for aggressive people who accuse Kim Hallock of murder. If Kim Hallock wants to hide something about herself, like that she was raped that night, that is known as privacy.

Privacy is a right to protect yourself, because man is naturally evil and aggressive. Man will use whatever information he can get, to do evil to any person he can take advantage of. The right of a person to keep secrets is sacred.

The right of a stranger to invent accusations, to make up stories to fill the void created by the secrets which privacy is composed of, is zero. The difference is as sharp as the difference between consensual sex and rape. It is as different as between me eating food out of my own refrigerator, and you running in and eating my food.

---------------

Crosley Green's DNA and Criminal Justice on Planet Earth

In Crosley Green's pending case, the State mentioned many things that were not known at trial. One of them was a DNA test on a hair that was found in the car or something. It basically matched Crosley Green.

What bothers me about this so much, is it begins with the assumption that evidence is real, that the people who produce it are perfect and honest. The question is not whether the DNA matches. It is whether human beings who have a strong bias for the result, are capable of conducting an exercise like this honestly. The reality is there is not a public demand for honesty, or to audit the honesty of the work of people like the FDLE. There are many who would protect crooked work at the FDLE, and shield them from being exposed as dishonest.

In my friend's case Mandi May Jackson, there was an FDLE ballistics analyst who did bad work, Christine Murphy. If they fired her, you could tell the jury she did bad work. But instead she "retired". According to case law in Florida, you can't tell the jury if she did bad work, only if she had a reputation for bad work. So by her retiring instead of firing her, they effectively hid her bad work from juries. You just are not allowed to tell them. There are many extraordinary examples in Mandi May Jackson's case that show the extent to which dishonesty is mainstream and accepted and demanded by biased factions in criminal justice. I will share just one example here.

There was a woman Denise Smith who saw a man jump off his balcony. He lingered at the railing long enough for her and her brother Russell Songer to say "don't jump, don't jump." She dialed 911 and called it in as a suicide. She mentioned no gunshot or words. She was in the Navy, and claims to be familiar with what guns sound like. The first two responding officers clearly recorded her story. One wrote it in his police report. The other probably wrote it in his police report but it was edited out by the lead detective. But he described what she said clearly and confidently in his deposition.

At trial, Denise Smith told a completely different story. She said there was a gunshot and the man came running out onto the balcony, and basically jumped over the railing. Her brother Russell Songer said the man cried "Oh no!" right before the gunshot. They clearly said nothing like that to the police the day it actually happened. The Detective called them in a few weeks later. And before he took their statements, he told them his new narrative that the victim was shot while fleeing, and fled a gunshot over the balcony.

Just to make sure there is no doubt, there is physical evidence. The physical evidence matches what they originally told police, and makes the "shot while fleeing" story they told at trial, impossible. This woman did not know the man who died, or live in his building. She did not know my friend who was accused. She was a complete stranger who was out walking through the park with her brother. She considers herself a moral person.

And yet with no direct interest in the case, not knowing anyone involved, and with no apparent incentive, she went up on the stand and told straight lies with no incentive whatsoever. She was not coerced to lie under a plea bargain. She was not lying to get out of jail, or for money, or to avenge a friend, or under any kind of pressure. And yet she felt she was doing right as a good citizen to go up on the stand and tell complete lies about what she witnessed, for the purpose of taking an innocent person's life.

That is the ecosystem the FDLE lives in, when they do their little DNA experiments like they did for Crosley Green.





---------------

Read how John A Torres of Florida Today shamelessly pushes garbage for clicks, and discredits the innocence movement: John A Torres Pushes Contradictions, Hearsay, and Garbage.


---------------

CROSLEY'S APPEAL OVERTURNED AND CONVICTION AFFIRMED

Here is the opinion of the US District Court of Appeals 11th Circuit, reversing the Middle District of Florida:

crosley_11_reversed.pdf

Before reading all 184 pages, I believe this ruling is legally correct. I also believe Crosley did it. I also believe Crosley should get a new trial. The lower court opinion contained basic errors, which should not have been critical to the outcome but may have contributed to it. The only relevant matter in the appeal is the withheld notes of the opinion of police who never met Kim Hallock, that Kim Hallock did it. Other matters mentioned include the DNA test, and more recent conflicting sworn statements. I believe the standard, is whether the withheld notes could have affected the trial outcome, from the vantage point of the court. Crosley's attorneys knew of the evidence which the withheld police opinion relied on, specifically some inconsistencies in Kim Hallock's story, which were not material to the outcome. The idea is that the opinion of a cop as to guilt, particularly one who never met Kim Hallock, is not admissible as evidence at trial, and so could not have affected the trial outcome. The counter-argument is that if this police opinion was made available to Crosley's attorneys, it could have informed them that the possibility Kim Hallock did it needed to be more deeply investigated. The reality is Crosley's attorneys already had all the data they needed to decide whether to investigate whether Kim Hallock did it. And they likely did not investigate if Kim Hallock did it, because they knew it wasn't true. But the court does not know what Crosley's lawyers probably know, which is that Crosley was there. So from the point of view of the court, the information in the withheld notes could have been used by Crosley's lawyers to guide their investigation before trial, but not at trial. I believe the legal standard is whether the notes could have been used or could have helped at trial, which they could not have. Even if the legal standard is could they have helped Crosley's attorneys investigate before trial, there is a fair argument that they could not have, as Crosley's attorneys were aware of Hallock's small inconsistencies, were aware of the "drug deal gone bad" theory, and had the theory that Kim Hallock did it available to them. Particularly where the opinion of a cop who never met Kim Hallock and never investigated the case, is not relevant to a lawyer who knows all the objective facts that cop knew and more. I have not seen the opinion of the appeals court, and it may refer to basic errors in the lower court ruling which contributed to the outcome. My own opinion is that if they withheld it, there should be a new trial, period. But then there is an argument that the state missed their opportunity to provide a fair trial in a timely fashion, which I don't know if there is any legal support for.

---------------

After reading all 184 pages of Crosley's appeal reversal, I cannot find fault in it. That may be because Crosley has not had lawyers who raised the arguments effectively. Off the top of my head, I find only three issues in Crosley's trial and conviction, 1) whether his lawyer should have stricken the juror whose niece was murdered, 2) whether the dog-track evidence was reliable, and 3) whether the reliability of coerced witnesses was sufficiently explained to the jurors. The law does not seem to support any mechanism for relief for the trial lawyer's decision to keep that juror, since the juror cured his problems with legally accepted statements, and there is no reason to suspect it affected the outcome. The dog track stuff may be unreliable, or maybe should have been discredited. But Crosley could have been easily convicted without it. It does not seem any appeal has ever raised the issue of whether coerced witnesses were sufficiently explained to the jurors. I also think Crosley's lawyers wasted time in not getting a quick ruling explicitly on every matter from the Florida Supreme Court, to avoid ambiguity in whether the federal court has jurisdiction. I think making that claim on actual innocence is a waste of time. But better representation is hard to come by even with money but only with a compelling case for innocence. And the case for Crosley's innocence or even that the jurors were misled or the outcome is not legal, is not compelling. Finally, I think the jurors figured out what happened here, that Kim Hallock went to the park to buy weed and the drug dealer robbed them. And any additional exploration or new evidence would lead to the same conclusion, which I arrived at myself just from Kim Hallock's deposition. I am disgusted that Clarke, Rixey, and news people have chosen this case to make issues where there are none.

Common Cause of False Convictions: Embarrassed Cop Setup

People in Brevard are familiar with the death of Chip Flynn. Many are certain Kim Hallock did it, with no actual evidence that she did it, other than that she was present. And they are angry that she got off because she was a teenage girl, rather than a heroin addict or something. Simply being present would have been enough to convict someone with a heroin mugshot.

What are people's reasons for believing Kim Hallock did it? The first responding officers became possessed with a suspicion that she did it. And once people become possessed with that idea, they start desperately inventing evidence to support it. They say it is suspicious Kim Hallock couldn't find her way back to an unmarked dirt turnoff, where she had never been before and she fled out of in the dark. They say it is impossible for a 30-year-old man in 1989 to drive a stick shift, when they are only going 60 seconds away, he literally only needs to shift once, and Kim plainly said that she and Chip told him where the gears were, which gears could not have really been as unique as known liars claim.

More recently in Brevard, two teenagers were shot to death, by a deputy who thought the car they were driving was stolen, without even checking the license plate. Weeks later, the Sheriff was still insisting the car might have been stolen, despite the owner having said it wasn't. After 6 weeks, the FDLE is still "investigating" what the deputy did and won't admit he was wrong.

In Ohio the other day, Andre Hill was shot to death by a cop, after a neighbor called 911 to report he was turning his car on and off, and it was suspicious. When the police responded and saw Andre Hill standing in a friend's garage with his hand in his coat pocket to keep warm on a December night, they became possessed with a suspicion he had a gun, and shot him to death. Even after he was lying on the ground near death, one cop advised another cop not to go near him, for fear he might still have a gun. When another cop arrived on scene, he said "cuff him". Based on nothing. Andre Hill had committed no crime. Andre Hill had no gun, and there was no sign that he had a gun.

It is not just police. Both Andre Hill and Elijah McClain had cops called on them by complete strangers who thought they looked suspicious. One time I happened to park my pickup truck next to some old tires dumped in the street. The security guard from the Mears Taxi Company several blocks away called the police. He told them I stole the tires from Mears Taxi. I was chased down by six cop cars at high speed, and cuffed face down on the pavement.

One of the cops looked at the tires on the back of my truck, which were newer than the ones on the front. He said "You got some nice tires on the back of your truck." As if having tires on a pickup truck is suspicious! It was only after they called Mears to find out the value of the tires I had stolen, that they realized the guy who called them was just hallucinating. Even so, when I got home, there were cops in the street in front of my house, presumably looking to see if they could see any stolen tires in plain sight. All because someone dumped junk in the street, and a security guard hallucinated that I had stolen it.

Another time, my car was broken into, damaging the door. My gas gauge got knocked out of whack hitting a rock on a Colorado highway at night. I ran out of gas in another state, a cop saw my car on the side of the road, and he entered my license plate wrong so that it came back as belonging to a different car. He arrested me for driving a stolen car.

They tackled me at a gas station and arrested me. They never asked to see my license and registration. I was in the Millbrae jail for perhaps two hours, shouting to the sounds up the hall that they could find my license and registration in my car. When they finally let me go, I saw they had pulled all the panels from my car, and tore it apart, looking for something they could charge me with. The cop said "I still think this car is stolen, and as soon as I can prove it I am going to come find you and you will be right back in here."

There is the standard story, that police who shoot someone will then plant a weapon on him to justify the shooting. A cop mistook my friend for someone they were trying to arrest, when he saw my friend running up the sidewalk. He tackled my friend and put him in his car. When he ran my friend's ID and saw he arrested was the wrong person, he planted a bag of weed on my friend. A cop who gets something wrong might have legal liability. But what if the stakes are much lower, what if the cop is just embarrassed?

What if it's not just legal, what if the cop has some emotional reason, that makes him desperate to prove whatever his initial suspicion was? Unlike the people who pretend to prove Kim Hallock killed Chip Flynn by making up proof, a cop really can make up evidence.

My friend's boss made all the girls come home with him. Her boyfriend didn't like it, he knocked on the door, and got into a fight with her boss. Her boss blamed her and started attacking her, and boyfriend shot the boss in the leg. The boss was drunk and coked up out of his mind and on other drugs, and later managed to fall off the balcony. Multiple witnesses saw him alone on his balcony and told him not to jump. It was called in as a suicide.

Detective Ben Sprague of the Altamonte Springs Police Department looked at the security video from the apartment complex. He saw the boyfriend arriving around the same time as my friend walked out to the parking garage with her boss. He saw the boyfriend "clearly texting" in the elevator. Obviously my friend was coordinating with her boyfriend to come in and rob the guy. He arrested her. In her car, he found a floor plan of a house. He told a witness during a video interview "They had it all planned out."

Detective Sprague told the papers it was an armed robbery "gone wrong." The night/justice editor at The Orlando Sentinel was a friend of the boss who died. He embellished the arrest affidavit with things that weren't in it and aren't true, such as that she tied up her boss, and there was a trail of blood as he escaped and fled over the balcony. All provably false, all invented.

Then Detective Sprague found out my friend received no calls or texts all night, from when she got to work to when her boyfriend showed up. Her boyfriend did not even have a phone! The video of him "clearly texting" was just video of him pulling his pants up. And the floor plan in her car looked nothing like her boss's apartment. It was from a room share she looked at a year earlier. So Detective Sprague started staging evidence, and inventing evidence, to save embarrassment for hallucinating a crime that did not actually happen.

He changed the video timestamps. He supervised a CSI to stage the bullet to look like her boss was shot while fleeing. They staged and arranged evidence at her house. Even right on the stand at trial they were still making stuff up. The CSI lied about where she found the gloves and where she got the DNA swabs, to make a false match of wearer and victim. It was all nonsensical, the narrative made no sense. But my friend had a prior false arrest for 7 pounds of GHB. The state crime lab said she never possessed any GHB. She never said she possessed GHB, the cop hallucinated it. But because there were newspaper stories that said it, they thought it must be true and she must have drugged her boss to incapacitate him so she could rob him.

Finally they did what cops often do when they told the paper they caught a murderer, but they have no actual evidence. They said anyone in jail who claims this girl confessed to you, gets out of jail. And it worked. Girls told plain lies on the stand at my friend's trial, complete nonsense that matched no other physical evidence. And they let them out as a reward, saved them years in prison. Actual dangerous felons were let out of prison, to convict someone for a hallucinated crime. And my friend is serving life without parole from age 21, for a crime that didn't happen.

And so it provokes the question: How often do cops do what they did to my friend, frame someone to save themselves embarrassment? We know they hallucinate crimes, they become possessed with false suspicions, and then turn out to be wrong with major consequences. We have the dead bodies to prove it. And we know they go to all kinds of lengths, planting weapons on dead people, running all kinds of fake investigations and coverups, to save themselves the consequences from having hallucinated and been wrong in that heat of the moment.

The cop who framed my friend described himself as not very bright, but very persistent. He said he was quiet in high school, nobody knew him. He said he was surprised when State Attorney Phil Archer awarded him LEO of the Year for framing my friend. My point being, he had a low self esteem. Hallucinating a robbery, telling the papers and the victim's family, then turning out to be wrong, had a high cost for him. It was painful for him, because it made him feel the way he saw himself, incompetent, a nobody. He was also maybe paranoid there really was a robbery, and they were going to get away with it, because he was stupid to prove it or understand what actually happened. So he felt this pressure on himself, to fake the evidence to make it work.

And so I propose to you that this must happen a lot. We know cops hallucinate, they become possessed with suspicion, and they are wrong. We know people who call the cops become suspicious over nothing, and once they set that ball rolling it keeps rolling and it is a disaster. And we know cops who hallucinate in a pinch, in a split second, create a big mess for themselves, and embarrassment. And we know people, the public, juries, the mob, are inclined to suspicion and to act like a mob based on nothing.

The necessary factors are all in place for this to happen a lot. And I propose to you that with police hallucinating crimes so frequently, and it being so easy to plant or stage some piece of evidence to save themselves embarrassment and consequences afterwards, for their error, that it must happen a lot. I propose to you that a major cause of false convictions is cops who hallucinate a crime, and then can't resist the opportunity to fake evidence to make themselves look like heroes, and save themselves looking like idiots. Framing my friend is no different from covering up an unjustified shooting, and much easier. It is sold to a willing public who will convict anyone with a prior mugshot based on hallucinated suspicion.

--------------------------------

The scientific process is fun. It would be fun to hypothesize and test: What types of convictions would most likely result from cops who were wrong framing people, to save themselves from embarrassment?

The first one I came up with is suicide. Like suppose a husband shoots himself. Cop says omg the wife did it, arrests her. Neighbor heard a bang and saw the wife coming out of the house.

Next thing it turns out the neighbor was not even home that day, was out of town. Wife is in jail, cop has charged her with murder in a suicide, has no evidence. About to cost the city money, and be a famous idiot.

Cops gets a blouse from the wife's drawer. Dabs the sleeve in the blood stain where the guy shot himself. Sticks the blouse in the washing machine, photographs it there, and processes it as evidence.

Everyone in jail reads the story in the paper. They say "wife confessed to me in jail, she says she shot her husband in a fight because she thought he was cheating on her." They get sentences reduced two years for lying.

Turns out the husband was cheating on her. Wife gets the needle.

Any other ideas of crimes where the embarrassed cop setup is likely to happen?

email 2ulive on gmail

John Alberto Torres Supports Replacing Juries With Politicians

It is in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution: Our Founders craved trials by jury. Why? Is it because jurors are smarter or more just than other people? It is because jurors are the least corruptible. And they are cumulative. Every conviction has to be approved by 12 additional random people, peers of the accused, with no connection or interest in the case.

It is because jurors are not accountable to the voters or to the victim or to anyone else, that they are the least corruptible. And that is also precisely the reason they are hated, and are an endangered species throughout history.

John Alberto Torres has recently advocated for a "Conviction Integrity Unit" in the 18th Judicial Circuit:

https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2019/07/03/if-ever-county-needed-conviction-integrity-unit-brevard/1620394001/

What is a Conviction Integrity Unit? It is basically a jury of politicians, or political actors. It is an insane idea, that if we find the trial by jury process is broken for some reason, we are going to add a jury of public officials, or officials appointed by politicians and paid by the government.

What will be the incentives facing the politicians on the Conviction Integrity Unit, when they get to sit in judgment of who is innocent and who is guilty? Will they make a name for themselves by being contrary and letting everyone out, innocent and guilty alike? Or will they answer to tough-on-crime voters, and those who sympathize with victims and hate untermenschen, and keep everyone in, innocent and guilty alike?

You might say their incentive will be to seek truth and justice. But how will the public monitor their work, and decide whether they are fulfilling that mandate, to seek truth and justice? Certainly every voter cannot go through the evidence and testimony himself with a fine comb, to see if the voter agrees with what the Conviction Integrity Unit spits out. Rather the public will measure the work of the Conviction Integrity Unit by comparing it to their own ideas of who is really innocent and guilty, whipped up with gossip and tidbits, by a sensational news media for clicks.

In essence, the Conviction Integrity Unit will be what every assault on the jury is, a belief by some other group of people that it is their right to decide. In this case, it would be the news media, people like John Alberto Torres, whom the Conviction Integrity Unit would answer to. A Conviction Integrity Unit physically located in a particular county, would be captive to the same political incentives and deterrents as the police and prosecutor in that county are already governed by. Except there would be some additional politics, where they get to pick one prosecutor as a fall guy and let one person out of prison each year, for TV.

The real solution if the jury trial is broken and convicting innocent people, is to fix the jury trial!

One problem people like John Alberto Torres complain about, is coerced jailhouse confession so-called witnesses. Every inmate in the jail for any amount of time, and facing any kind of sentence, is soon educated how all he has to do is claim another inmate in a tough case confessed, and he gets to go home. And there is no penalty, but only a reward for perjury, no matter how much physical evidence the claimed confession disagrees with.

There are literally hundreds more inmates willing to claim someone confessed to get out, than there are accused willing to confess to strangers and get life in prison as a result. So the ratio of straight liars to actual jailhouse confessions is likely to be hundreds to one. And nor is this just a theory, actual experience backs this up.

What are some solutions to this? Certainly none of the ones the Florida Supreme Court and other lawmakers consider. A judge can no more determine if a claimed confession is reliable, than a judge can determine if hearsay is reliable. Others argue that a jury has a sacred ancient right to hear these witnesses, even though a simple policeman can deprive the jury of any witness whose narrative he doesn't like, just by losing his name. Or you can outlaw coerced witnesses altogether, which would be the simplest and most reliable solution. But police and prosecutors who get to play fake heroes convicting innocents of murder with these confessions, will squeal all day and threaten the voters with death.

How about... tell the jury the truth? That is not currently allowed under case law. You are not allowed to tell jurors what past crimes a jailhouse witness has been convicted of, such as if he was convicted of the exact crime and the exact story he claims another inmate confessed to. You are not allowed to say the word "liar" in front of the jury. You are not allowed to say "the ratio of straight liars to actual jailhouse confessions is likely to be hundreds to one" in front of the jury. You are certainly not allowed to tell the jury exactly what the Florida Supreme Court themselves published, that "informant perjury was a factor in nearly 50% of wrongful murder convictions."

It just seems so simple, if a jury is getting it wrong, you are not telling them the truth. You are not telling them everything. You are literally not getting a trial of the facts by the jury. If witnesses are lying to the jury, create a penalty for perjury. If prosecutors are leading witnesses to lie in front of the jury, and hiding evidence from the jury, the solution is not to create a jury of politicians like a military tribunal, who have different rules of evidence, and who are allowed to use the word liar. The solution is to create a penalty for prosecutors who get caught hiding evidence and supervising lies in front of the jury. The solution is to create a penalty for prosecutors who get caught committing the most heinous crime which tears up our democracy, of convicting innocents.

Do the same thing you want to do in the Conviction Integrity Unit - relax the rules of evidence to add more of it, bring in whatever discovery you find later, call liars "liars" - except do it in front of the less corruptible jury. Instead of in front of politicians five years later, and supervised by the news media. And create an independent regulator of prosecutors who is adversarial - like the news media is to the prosecutors themselves - but with actual teeth in the form of punishment for wrongdoers, instead of more votes for more convictions, discovered to be false 15 years later if ever.

Or if leftists really cannot tolerate the irrationality and biases of jurors, and those on the right cannot suffer their lack of accountability, just be honest and up front and take it out of the Constitution. I think all the irrationality and biases of jurors that leftists object to - convicting drug users of crimes they didn't commit, just for being drug users, believing state testimony over drug user testimony - can be fixed by simply saying the truth in front the jury: Cops and prosecutors lie, and can be just as evil and sociopathic as accused criminals. Just as evil as the British our Founders fled from, just as evil as Nazis. And this is what the penalties are and aren't for cops and prosecutors who lie and convict the innocent. You figure it out!

Lay it all out in front of the jury: These are the penalties that prosecutors and police do and don't face for lying and being wrong and convicting innocents. They are rewarded sometimes for it, by a gullible public! You figure it out! That is a trial by jury.

It is no surprise that in the exotic pet shop of mediocre social climbers that is Central Florida, a news reporter would advocate replacing juries with a committee of political actors that is more answerable to news reporters. This is just more of the same, only one more group added to the mix. We already have a bunch of idiots who think their opinions are more important than a jury, we don't need to create and pay two more sets of them.

Unless, of course, you want to pay me to tell you who is guilty in the end. I am totally open to that and I would do a much better job.

-------------------------------

There is another way of looking at this, that should help you realize the "Conviction Integrity Unit" is pure evil, without John A. Torres of Florida Today realizing, or intending for it to be.

I have written elsewhere, how prosecutors have developed a variety of tricks, to answer the voters' demands to cut the jury out of the loop (like everyone in history always does), and convict whomever they want. One of these is jailhouse confession so-called witnesses. Another is prosecutors hiding exculpatory evidence.

The simplest way is police just lie. Florida law says police who break the law are investigated by their own department. So cops can lie and fake evidence to predetermine the outcome of trials, and convict whomever they want. And to the extent they are able to convince voters the people they have taken off the streets are untermenschen, it is approved. The mayor, the sheriff, look the other way, they reward instead of punish the misconduct. They say we are doing good things here, getting undesirables off the streets and making the world a better place. Who would punish a cop who lied to guarantee that goal?

If you doubt this happens, there are plenty of examples of jailhouse witnesses lying to convict innocents. Plenty of examples of prosecutors hiding evidence. And when they get caught, there is no penalty or consequence. I have written hundreds of pages, illustrating how cops straight faked evidence to convict my friend, and there is zero penalty for it.

And what do police need to do when they get caught, or when someone complains, to protect this heinous racket? They need to let the people they falsely convicted out as quickly as possible, so nobody complains. They say we are going to convict everyone, guilty and innocent, to get untermenschen off the streets and make the voters happy. And then if there are one or two people out of 100's where the voters object to it, or the newspaper tells the voters they should object to those one or two people, we will use this Conviction Integrity Unit to let those people out. Now everyone is happy, and there is no public objection left whatsoever. There is no public outcry, that we have developed a standard process, to cheat and use lies to make juries irrelevant and convict the innocent.

This totally protects the scam from the political process. It basically says, rather than change the law to fix the jury trial and prevent us from convicting innocents, how about we just let out the one or two really popular people you want to let out? Would you let us keep doing what we are doing then? Sure you would.

This completes the elimination of jury trials. Police and prosecutors convict 100% of undesirables, regardless of whether they are guilty of the particular crime they have been convicted of. And then the news media decides who is actually not guilty, and they should let out. The transfer of power from the jury to the news media, has become complete. It is literally an insane dystopia, and it is actually happening!

It's like if Germans rounded up all the Jews. And then John A. Torres comes along and says hold up, we actually really like Billy Crystal. We really liked Kid Rock, who knew he was Jewish? So the Conviction Integrity Unit lets Kid Rock and Billy Crystal out. And then says now is everybody happy? Can we get on with exterminating the Jews? Sure you can. We have tweaked it to make sure it is palatable to 51% of voters.

Suppose it gets down to 49% voter support, and people want to change the law to stop us convicting the innocent. We say what one person could we let out, to get back 2% of you and get back to 51% support? Not Crosley Green. Never mind that he is guilty, but he is also a really scary black guy. We would lose 20% of voters to get the 2%. Oh, Grandma Axe Murderer, the media would get off our backs if we let her out? Done. Do I have 51% support again to railroad the innocent? Thank you.

Who is up for getting rid of appeals courts, the CIU works much better, doesn't it? We just let the media try the cases, and try them on Twitter. And then vote for who is guilty, and who gets let out. You can be 100% sure the voter is not going to complain about that! Pure evil.

False Prophet Ann Coulter







Fun fact: Ann Coulter has no experience as an accused criminal, as a cop, as a judge, as a prosecutor, or as a defense lawyer. Ann Coulter knows less about criminal justice than Hillary Clinton knows about healthcare.



If I were a criminal, then my writing on criminal justice in the United States would not be fiction like when Ann does it.



Criminal justice statistics are manufactured with an agenda. A person who has used very distant and general statistics, most produced by an institution with an agenda to create a narrative to support themselves politically, does not actually know how crimes turn into convictions at the micro level. I can research football all day, and yet I could not coach or run one play.

Even worse, the false criminal justice mythology marketed by Ann, is counter-productive to her policy goals. Like Thomas Sowell warns, criminal justice is governed by an abstract and elitist vision, by distant actors and decision makers who pay no price for being wrong. The actual outcome, where the rubber meets the road, manafactures Democrat voters. Mass incarceration manufactures Democrat voters with a greater persistence and inevitability than immigration. De Tocqueville would ask: What happens when the voters realize they can vote all their family members out of prison? The costs of imperfect justice are absorbed by voters, who do pay a price and then vote. They suffer and vote against the remote intellectuals like Ann.

Ann's writing has encouraged a fad of protected police and prosecutor misconduct, and false convictions, which manufactures Democrat voters. Connick v Thompson + "Handcuffing the Police" + (life drug sentences + felony murder + leftist testimony case law + coerced testimony) = Joe Biden. And it also comes out to $$$ for Ann, when she rants about the dysfunction.

What if being prosecuted for a crime were like campaigning as a Republican, lies and lies? Republicans won one hand years ago, when they defeated the left's "rehabilitation and root causes" philosophy. Republicans thought they must know something about this game. Republicans return to the crime well and come up dry because Ann poisoned it.

The saddest thing is every criminal case Republicans know something about (Limbaugh, McCloskey, Gardner, Flynn, Rittenhouse, Duke, Proud Boys.......) Republicans say OMG the justice system is retarded! But if a paper embellishes a police report about an unknown immigrant for clicks, Republicans post "no bail!" on Twitter. It is really nothing more than a shibboleth, because they think it is a vote getter.

I've read Ann's columns on the Central Park Five. They proved to me Ann has no clue about criminal justice. Example: Ann said it would be "awkward" if a cop led a kid's parents to believe there is a benefit to a false confession. Reality: Cop is admired, confession is undisclosed hearsay. Ann's "truth" about the Central Park Five is actually a set of theories, from somebody with zero experience in either crime or law enforcement. It is sad, because being outside reality leads Republicans on a path to election loss. If cops can shoot an unarmed person with no static from their peers, you can be sure getting random people to confess will only win them accolades. And false confessions save gas actually investigating crimes.

If Ann had actual experience in criminal justice, she might have come across a false confession at some point. She might have tried to make it awkward for a cop, and found out what really happens. Sad.



Ann loves to trash single moms because, in addition to single moms being an example of the flawed nature of man (other examples being kings, priests, cops, politicians, lawyers, and teenagers), Ann is a single non-mom.

As a single mom whose child is more likely to be arrested, you should be appalled by what Ann has created. In the US they will let sophisticated dangerous felons out of prison, as a reward for swearing your child committed or confessed crimes. Broke papers who laid off all their investigative reporters, and have to be cozy with police to generate juicy gossip, will reprint the false acccusations against your child for clicks.

One thing for certain, is that single moms can less afford private lawyers or legal research, making your kids a soft target, easy meat. Prosecutors have an incentive to invent villains, and coerce drug felons with the threat of life sentences, to swear a fake narrative. They will incite a mob against your innocent child, and use your child for sport to win elections, like cheating in a fishing tournament. They will claim your child is a world-record swordfish. And Ann will lap it up and tweet all over the place that your child is a "super predator" and the reason why functional married moms need to elect Republicans. It will be "awkward" for you, not for the cops or for Ann. Ann will cash $20 a book ranting against your children.

Then you will go around crying your child is innocent, can they really do this? Does anyone care what the truth is? And everyone will say look at these untermenschen bastards with their single moms. Read Ann, they are all "guilty", it is thanks to bad parenting. What a dirtbag single mom you are letting your child run wild.

There is one more chapter. Next thing you will vote Democrat. Republicans will say if you had a bad experience with the justice system we don't want your vote. What makes white people like you so crazy to vote for socialism? It must be voter fraud. Felons should testify against the children of single moms who can't afford lawyers, in exchange for getting let out of prison, not vote or own guns.

Here are two examples of young people who were sluts and smoked weed, and it led to the media inciting a mob against them as murderers: Kim Hallock and Mandi May Jackson. If you believe the news, you will believe both are murderers. Neither is. Try fighting that as a single mom.

This scumbag Ann will destroy your child with no mercy. She will do it as a sick virtue signal to demonstrate her own vain moral superiority, and as a shibboleth to attach herself to the Republican political win over "rehabilitation and root causes" in the 1980's.

And if you think I am not in reality and Republicans are, and they would never lock up your innocent child, you should try guaranteeing Trump would win 47 states. And then try going to the Michigan statehouse with your own electors and getting locked out like a child. Vanity blinds.

And I will remind you if it is Kyle Rittenhouse or Jake Gardner or the Duke lacrosse team, Ann Coulter will whine all day. But when it is your child threatened with life without parole for a crime that didn't happen, she will post your kid's ugly mug and say "single mom dirtbag."



If you think that is bad, you should try getting a fair trial in Ann Coulter's utopia when you know a drug dealer.



"Qualified" is not even a common term. At least I can define and test "systemic racism": Are black people less likely to have political connections which would protect them from police misconduct? Do racially homogeneous countries have harsher sentences and coerced testimony?

Sowell said aggregations like "most women are beaten, abused, or shouted at by their husbands" are trick arguments, using trick statistics, used by crooked power hoarders, who mislead to rally support to their agendas. Ann reads Sowell, and says women are safe with their husbands, to pretend to be the honest one, the contrarian with the unique viewpoint. Then Ann retweets "5,000 people let of of jail, many of whom are convicted of or in pretrial for violent crimes". "In pretrial for" LOL.

Kyle Rittenhouse GUILTY Jake Gardner GUILTY Rush Limbaugh GUILTY Duke Lacrosse GUILTY NYC Proud Boy GUILTY Officer Rolfe GUILTY! Who is letting all these scumbags with their hustler mob of supporters out of prison? GUILTY. Michael Milken, GUILTY, Donald Trump GUILTY. Vain is Ann.



Ann proved that Breonna Taylor is guilty right on my computer screen.

The number one way sociopathic cops convince gullible housewives their victims are worthless untermenschen, is by petting dogs in public. I noticed Ann retweets a lot of dogs lately. I am speculating Ann does not own a dog. But surely Breonna must have no rights if Ann loves dogs.



Police are the only branch of government most people come in contact with. So when Ann Coulter starts a cult of people who think police and prosecutor misconduct is good to imprison strangers who aren't part of her cult, they have to fight back. You awaken now to why Trump lost?

Do you awaken now to how Trump could lose in a place like Georgia? Do you awaken to how Raphael Warnock, a commie abortion radical gun grabber running as Jeremiah Wright and Fidel Castro, could be up in a poll in a place like Georgia? Do you awaken that Ann Coulter destroyed us?

Ann and H-Mac went to work with unsurpassable efficiency. Sowell said "this book will save lives." General well-being ought to have been the consequence. It is true that instead we find misery, shame, and at the end of it all, a stream of blood. But that was a chance coincidence.

We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis except one: The present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part, and the pursuit of our most cherished ideals apparently produced results utterly different from those we expected.

And yes I am angry that PTSD lunatics like Tom Cotton read Ann's garbage, and waste millions on ads that push polls the wrong way. Then they slither away to write and sell some more garbage to salve parrots, and blame Trump for embarrassing the party.

And mentally-ill cops run out and shoot more unarmed people, thinking that Trump actually won the election and martians rule.



Ann you should write some more Breonna columns, it really seems to be helping Reverend Warnock in the polls. Maybe you could get Tom Cotton to buy some more PTSD nutjob cop-cult ads also, declaring war on your neighbors. You couldn't be raised by wolves, to think it's a good idea to argue that girls should be shot, during an election campaign.

Trial by jury is in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, specifically to protect from people like Ann smearing people, and inciting a mob against people with hearsay, to prove they should be dead. Everyone knows a loud person can incite a mob that you are evil and deserve no rights. Ann will keep smearing people, in hopes of creating a country where you can shoot anyone that you smear on the web.

Cops are just too sloppy, and poorly monitored and regulated, to obtain a license to kill so easily. Judges will sign any garbage affidavit, and there is no penalty for cops who fill affidavits with lies and misinformation.

Republicans confuse police having a right to do something, with non-Republican voters having no right to say they don't like it. Police don't have a divine right to do anything voters don't like or consent to. Not for long anyway. Ann is inciting it's good to kill without trials! Republicans confuse what police have a right to do, with whether the voter can decide what police have a right to do. The voter can, and Republicans are in denial.

If you have sinned, then Ann gets to approve of whatever torture or death she likes and nobody else can complain. It's a delusion by people like Ann, that her preference is supreme and other people's preferences or lives are subjugated. If you sin, the game is whatever Ann wants.

Ann defines other people's individual responsibility as her personal preference. Ann tells you what Ann would like. If anyone who disagrees has ever sinned, they deserve to suffer something they don't like - whatever Ann thinks is appropriate - as an appropriate price for their sins. It was Breonna's own choices, that made Ann find Breonna distasteful.

No need for a jury trial, if we can prove on TV that people are evil sinners and untermenschen, and that their lives and happiness are not useful to us and don't benefit us in any way. What has Breonna done for Karens lately? Then why should she get to live?

It's like if I kick a dog, then you get to say you would like to have sex with me for your birthday. It's an argument criminals use, and pedophiles use. That little girl was running around naked and having sex with all the kids! It's her own fault for being a slut! It is extremely deluded and self-centered. It is a trick for vain and violent people, to imagine their sick preferences are actually morals or even laws that passed the legislature.

Simply say the person you torture is immoral. Thwn your own capricious aggressive impulses toward those strangers become moral.

It is a neat trick where you take someone's rights away, and then smear them in the public square with hearsay to prove you were justified in taking their rights away because they were worthless untermenschen. And Republicans are shocked when people call them nazis. Old, old game that Ann plays. And very easy to play, not some kind of genius.

Literally every immoral violent person, no matter how dumb, argues his victim deserved it. The dumber the more so. The dumbest pay Ann to make the argument.

Republicans never say "This is tragic and unfortunate, but what can police do?" Rather they argue "Breonna was a dirtbag and it is awesome they killed her! We wouldn't want to improve if we could!" Ann keeps saying Breonna is a dirtbag, expecting you to be glad for the killing.

Ann should run for office, on a platform of lining up anyone with a drug mugshot, and shooting them like in communist China. I am sure advocating that you should want your neighbors to be shot will work great in a democracy. I expect Trump to win 47 states to shoot dirtbags.

Sadly the Republican Party has become infested with people who lack complete human minds.

The truth is Breonna was killed without being convicted of a crime, and now Coulter wants to advocate for homicide by inciting a mob against the dead with hearsay. But it doesn't work, and the voters just run to the other party when Ann opens her mouth and sounds like a nazi.



You want theories, here are theories: Breonna, an EMT, was trying to save the dead guy's life. The guy on the jail phone was lying about having money to try to get someone to pay his bond.

Ann spends life assuming felons in jail are lying. It is next-level self-delusion to select a felon who wasn't at Breonna's house, talking on the jail phone trashing his ex's new boyfriend, and lying to hustle up bond, and say the test of whether this felon says truth is whether he fits my narrative. And then reverse to say he validates my narrative, this felon who wasn't even there.

If you are using hearsay to prove to strangers on the internet that someone you never met (and really have no idea what you are talking about) should be killed, you need to check if there is an "n" in front of your party.

Ann's religion requires you to believe a black guy in jail, trying to hustle up bond, when he boasts that he has money to the ceilin'. Of course there is always some small catch, like the Lambo is in the repair shop today.





It is sad that Ann imagines she has any idea about this stranger Breonna in another state. And it is sick.

That Ann can find something written somewhere, upon which she can develop theories and insinuations and smears, does not make her inciting a mob against someone as deserving death, a moral activity.

There are many things written in many documents for Ann to pick and choose to tell her story. It does not mean that Ann, or the people who wrote a document or its opposite, have any idea about anything. It is more evidence of the agenda of the person who wrote the document based on the document based on the document, based on which document they selected or left out to claim to base it on.

I am being totally honest. This is well known to right-wing philosophers as the tragic view of mankind. Ann lives in a utopia, where elites like her with an abstract utopian vision can decide on the internet who deserves death, and expect others to cheer the sentence she determined, without any critical thinking because it fits their own preexisting opinion.



Here is a test: Did Ann Coulter change your mind about Breonna Taylor or the Central Park Five? Or did she prove she deserves your $20, by slapping together a flimsy proof she knew you would lap up without any critical thinking, because it proved something you already wanted to believe?

That is what Ann does for a living. She pulls together all kinds of random factoids, to help people feel good by justifying what they already want to believe. Her appearance of being brilliant, is actually very dull stuff enhanced by the glow of your own smug preconceptions.

Generally you knew what the book would say, and that you believed it, before you even bought it. And surprise, the conclusion of all this research makes sense to you! So of course you would never bother to think twice about the so-called research that validated your preexisting conclusion. Of course it's right, it makes sense to me!



You cannot point to a single lie I have told.



What if people knew the truth, and they just didn't like what happened, and were tired of being disdained by elitist intellectuals like Ann? Elitist intellectuals like Ann pay no price for being wrong, but are paid by prejudiced people to justify their prejudice.



But if I say something you already thought, and pretend to prove it to you scientifically which you will lap up like a dog without any critical thinking, you will give me $20 for a hard copy of your own dumb thoughts sold back to you.



Just as one example, some crap some guy said on the jail phone to try to get his friend to post bond, would not be permissible at a trial of Breonna Taylor (except possibly by the defense to impeach his statements if he is a prosecution witness), because it is not sworn, and therefore fits the legal definition, and the only sufficiently common definition that fits the context, of HEARSAY.

As to whether there is a penalty for police committing perjury in reports and affidavits, there is not. So any police report would fit a common definition of hearsay, used by millions of people who have actual real-life experience in the justice system, and who voted for Joe Biden.



It's the new Republicans, they worship government employees.



Caught? She was killed. Yes, she thought she would not get killed. I am not aware that she was convicted of a crime. So of course any sane person is appalled that people on the internet would endorse killing people who have not been convicted of a crime, and then slandering them to justify it after they are dead. And most people understand that you are too stupid or racist to realize the same thing could happen to you or your family member.



I believe people are so dumb and gullible, that almost nobody should be in prison. Because any 12 idiots, or a mob of 12,000 of them, and the competing charlatans who lead opposing factions of them, are too much lemmings to determine guilt or innocence any better than my dog.



Anyone who lets felons out of prison for testifying, is rewarding felons for victimizing people. And is not manufacturing actual justice, but a mirage of being tough on crime, for not having come up with a new campaign idea since 1985.



I got stacks of proof of cops committing perjury and faking evidence. And none will ever be charged. Because they are investigated by their own department, and charged by members of their local party lodge. You probably know that, and still don't realize why Trump lost.



You don't defeat marxism, by supporting cops who turn millions of innocent voters and their families into nihilists through misconduct. Suppose cops lie about just 50 people a year in 10,000 incidents (one lie in every 200 incidents). Multiply that little lie times four family members, times 20 counties per states, times 50 states, times 20 years. That is four million voters who run to the other party when a bunch of cop worshippers ride around with "thin blue line flags."

My dear friend is currently serving life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen. As I result, in the past year I have:

Mailed out at least 6,000 printed pages
Spent $520 printing t-shirts
Built two websites
Wrote a book
Wrote about 50 essays
Made about 400 facebook posts many were shared multiple times
Made about 300 Twitter comments
Made at least 3,000 disqus comments on sites like Breitbart, Hoover and City Journal
Sent at least 2,000 emails to perhaps 400 Republican candidates and 20 Democrats
Talked to dozens of people on the street
Been the content source for a podcast in the top 100 in at least 10 countries

All to prove Republicans are scumbags! And I am just getting started!

You don't win elections by letting police lie to victimize your constituents. Police and prosecutors who face no consequence for victimizing the innocent, but only a reward when they libel your neighbors as untermenschen, make millions of people hate your party with unrivaled passion.



I will come back in 32 minutes: Republicans lost control of the government because they ran as a crazy cop cult which turned off the majority of voters.



You say it's not perfect. Then you campaign on a worship defending the imperfections, rather than admit them and improve over time, like every other human endeavor.

Heather Mcdonald declared war on any citizen who takes on his designed responsibility of regulating police.

Or why not just say a cop got shot, or a suburban Karen got shot, so what? Lots more cops get shot in Africa. Even if we defunded the police, Chicago would still be safer than Liberia during the civil war. So leave murderers alone and be happy with what you have.

You argue we are saving lives (in some private math), by defending police who kill like stoned idiots! Even the dead, like Breonna, must be attacked with hearsay "to save lives" according to this unwritten calculus. And then you pretend it is intelligence for Ann to quote a felon in jail who wasn't even there. Or quote a police report who quotes a cop. But only if it says what you already believe. If the same cop worked at the polling place when Trump lost, he was an enabler of fraud, part of the local swamp, part of the local political machine. A cop is a truther when Breonna dies, but a liar when Biden wins. All this proves is your own prejudice and preconceptions.



The only life-ending crimes perpetrated against me and my family, have been perpetrated by cops.



I have posted hundreds of pages and documents proving police lied to take my friend's life. I challenge you to prove even one sentence of it is false:

seminolescam.com

Fun Fact: Heather Mcdonald has zero experience in criminal justice, less than Hillary Clinton has in healthcare.

Fun Fact: Heather Mcdonald's work is an abstract an elitist vision based purely on theory, by someone who pays no price for being wrong. Like Ralph Nader or Paul Ehrlich, Thomas Sowell said of Heather's book "this book will save lives." If instead we find crime and misery has skyrocketed four years after Heather's book, that was a chance coincidence. We will never admit her book led us to where we are today.

Did Heather Mcdonald look at crime rates in countries where police aren't handcuffed? Is crime lower there? Or are crime and corruption higher?

Did Heather Mcdonald offer an explanation for why our Founders emphasized handcuffing the police in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution?

Were police and escaping crime really part of our Founding wisdom? Or did they sail on the Mayflower to evade the cops, knowing that indians and high seas were the lesser risk?

Fun fact: There is no independent institution in the US to investigate police and prosecutors. That is designed to be the job of the common citizen accused of a crime. Heather Mcdonald declared war on common citizens who fulfill their designed role in regulating the encroachment of the state on individual liberty! Is it any surprise Republicans who support this declaration of war on the common citizen lost the election?



What on Earth made you think 100,000 white people in the street, punching black people and burning down their businesses, care about black people? You watch too much MSNBC, The only thing I care about is putting cops in prison, so they will stop victimizing me and my innocent white friends and family members. And that is why white dudes like me did not turn out for Trump's bizarre vain reality-disconnected cop cult.

Who cares if white cops are stalking black people? The black people voted for Biden and can find out the stats if they care to, and probably know them better than you. You have millions of rural white people who hate cops, and you are arguing with some lesbian on MSNBC about black people, not with me. This is one of the craziest delusions among Republicans, that I want to lock cops in prison because I care about black people suffering. I want to lock cops in prison because I care about ME suffering!

It is true that racially homogeneous countries do not have as much coerced testimony and harsh sentences. Because they don't take the utopian view you take, that it will mostly be suffered by people from a different race or religion. And of course people who are part of the political establishment, don't care that justice is crooked and the only way to protect yourself from it is to have political connections, which minorities are less likely to have.

There are no checks and balances on local cops. For the local majority faction that seems great, as anticipated by James Madison in Federalist 51. But the victimization and oppression of the untermenschen creates adverse outcomes in a democracy, especially at the statewide and national level. And then you will say everything is a disaster and the cops are as good as they can be, in the same five minutes.



This idea that people refuse to try to improve the cop product, and threaten to let you get raped and carjacked if you even ask, is sick and offensive and a political loser.

Imagine being dropped in the polar bear cage, and the bear chases you around, and finally it catches you. That is like me trying to avoid the conclusion that Republicans really are racist, and then no longer being able to escape it any more.

You would never suggest that one more Karen should get shot, even though it is unfair, to save an untermenschen being falsely convicted.

You would never suggest that one more cop should go to prison, even if it is unfair, to save police from being chased out of the city or defunded and a Karen being shot.

But you will gladly say an untermenschen should be falsely convicted or shot, even if it is unfair, to save a Karen being shot, or to save a cop from any kind of trouble at all.

That is racism. That is all it is. And it is so deep in your mind, you can't be fixed, only replaced.



When the State of Florida lets obvious liars out of prison as a reward for victimizing the innocent, and lets police blatantly lie on the stand to victimize the innocent without consequence, and the result is people like me, and thousands of people who are more successful and influential than me, all devoting our lives to putting cops in prison and destroying the Republican Party, you are deluded to think you are doing a good job.

You don't care whatsoever that cops lie to victimize the innocent without consequence, and prosecutors coerce felons to lie to victimize the innocent, even when it is plain as day, and the result is it destroys your political party and your country, and you have no idea what happened.

We have Tom Cotton running these ads "the mob is coming for your house" and they push polls the wrong way. We have Raphael Warnock being painted as "defund the police", and he is in the lead in some polls in Georgia! You have Newt Gingrich saying at the time of the Democrat convention that Democrats are getting destroyed by the riots and will become desperate by mid September. And then your party gets destroyed, "the rioters win" and you have no idea why.

Republicans came up dry at the old crime well because the criminal justice system is pure garbage, and totally insulated from that reality by a vanity pumped up by Heather Mcdonald. And Republicans have no idea the hole they are in, with no way to get out of it, until they stop celebrating the victimizing of the innocent as worthless untermenschen.

Did you ever even consider any kind of deterrent to cops lying and prosecutors coercing felons to lie?

I know, it is like Abbott and Costello "But that would result in your family getting raped and carjacked like the 1970's!" Enjoy losing, scumbag.



I'm the race baiter? You are the one who has introduced race into this discussion, over and over. When was I even talking about black people until you came along?



I very deliberately spoke of Breonna as someone who has a mob incited against her as an untermenschen, or a minority faction, in an abstract way, in the general sense used by Madison in Federalist 51. My intention was always to analyze general principles of political economics, that might apply to Kurds in Iraq or Jews in Germany, or whatever "minority" Madison had in mind.

The idea is that the human mind gravitates to homicide outside trials just like it gravitates toward heroin and socialism. The human mind gravitates toward inciting mobs against perceived sinners and justifying their death. You could argue much of the development of Western Civilization, from the New Covenant to the Bill of Rights, is designed to mitigate this general pattern of dehumanizing individuals through slander and taking their rights.

So in essence, I was calling Ann a nazi. To do that, you have to use an abstraction where black people and Jews serve an identical role. So I intentionally avoided considering Breonna a black American, or any of the specific narratives people usually try to associate with brown Americans. You simply mistook me for something you commonly see. You mistook my narrative for a popular black American narrative, without examining it closely to see it was intended to be a more generalized nazi narrative.



You like felons voting or owning guns? Or just victimizing people with perjury you sick scumbag?



When jailhouse confession witnesses are 99.9% major criminal liars who walk free to victimize innocent smaller fish, and Kamala is President, where does that fall on your spectrum of not existing?



The question posed by serious conservative philosophers like Thomas Sowell would be who gets to decide what is the right amount of air and water? Certainly not you in your secret society, you sick arrogant criminal scumbag.

We fought the British at Yorktown so that juries, not prosecutors and their mob long before trial, would decide who is a big fish.

The activity you have described is a usurpation, far beyond what the Constitution intended or the voters or even most legislators are aware of. You have to be beaten back and punished and imprisoned, for being a traitor to not only the founding values of our country, but the current intent of the people.

A sick scumbag like you who thinks he has the right to pick who is guilty and fix the outcome of trials by coercing lies, like a vigilante without gullible voters ever knowing or approving what he is doing, should die in prison.

It is my only mission in the estimated 39 remaining years of my life, to make it happen. And I will wipe out all existence to get justice if it so happens. Because man has a taste for justice. Just as you have a taste for the arrogance and corruption of power.



You even admit you lock up the innocent to suit some abstract utopian social vision. But you have 40 million halfwit zombies like Ann Coulter saying nooooo, they are all Guilty, we would never do that, nobody has the authority to decide to lock up the innocent to suit his own secret utopian scale of values. If somebody did that, there would be mobs in the streets! If people secretly usurped the power of juries to decide who is guilty and then coerced lies to fix the outcome of trials, it would lead to the disintegration of society! And nobody would know who the culprit is. They would not know that this clown right here in the comment section is the splinter driving our current social upheaval.

It is not even the bigger fish that you are getting. It whoever is easiest to paint as the bigger fish (usually the smallest fish), so that gullible people will read your Twitter (that broke papers copy-paste for clicks), and think you are heroes. But you are fake heroes to millions of people who have suffered your scam, and the election outcome proves it.

The air and water was your abstract metaphor for your personal utopia where you convict enough innocent people for the gullible public to think you are really tough on crime, and justify your own criminal existence. Which is really as many innocent people as you can successfully libel as villains and untermenschen. The more, the greater of a hero you can paint yourself to be.



Do you advocate repealing the Bill of Rights, since everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty?

Do you think our Founders were delusional to complain to the King of being shipped overseas to be tried in mock trials without juries?

An entire Revolution, when our Founders could have just obeyed the law and the King would have left them alone. You just lost an election you were certain you would win, your party is in a demented embarrassing delusion spending millions to get kicked out of courtrooms, you are still convinced your evil ideas are shared by a majority, and at the same time you are convinced that you have achieved utopia.

It is a defense mechanism. You are so vain you will never admit in even one sentence that you were wrong and need to improve.

Everything is perfect, we will win in 2022. Never mind half our party is in a dystopia, having lost their minds for not being able to even find their way back to reality.



It is sad. Once again Republicans confuse losing with being in the majority.

And I remind you we were told that this election was the one, our last chance like global warming point of no return! Which it probably was, for 50 years.

You are right, it is crazy talk suggesting that cops who lie on the stand to victimize the innocent, and prosecutors who coerce felons to lie to victimize the innocent, and none of it would they ever openly admit to the mainstream of voters, is all within the voted law.



The main issue Republicans made this election about - cops - happens to be the most perfectly gerrymandered. So that Republicans could lose by three million votes, and still have almost as many seats as the majority they lost to, and are forced to watch from the bench. And so that the majority they are forced to watch, has the President and is convinced of their populist mandate.

Picture a state with 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans, one city and two rural counties, three representatives. Suppose the city is 68% Democrat, 23 to 11. That leaves 28 Democrats and 38 Republicans in the two rural districts. Democrat wins President, Republicans win representative.

If you don't think people become disconnected from reality by flattery such as Mcdonald gave cops, you should have heard Nancy Pelosi after I explained how she has a mandate this election after accounting for gerrymandering.

Most people don't realize the extent to which local departments took Mcdonald's book as a mandate to cover up police misconduct, and insulate police from the consequences of misconduct "to save lives." It became like a cult with a secret delusion that they are the chosen people. Their behavior worsened, even as it was enabled to worsen by people who were conditioned by Ferguson to doubt reports of their bad behavior.



I would love to compel reporting and develop some stats on that. But suggest that in the state legislature, and Republicans will run around like ants who had their hill kicked over for fear of having their only vote-getting scam exposed.



Local regulation of police and prosecutors favors local politics and specific outcomes, rather than abstract ideals like truth and due process. So I believe prosecutors and police should at least be compelled to report and regulated by an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level. Then the voters at the state level - who are less interested in a specific crime than the local police who got shot or the black people who shot them - can at least discover, if not deter and punish crimes and the abuse of discretion by prosecutors.

They would say prosecutors already answer to The Bar. The Bar does not answer to the voter, so that is as dumb as ants. They would say it is unfair for police to be regulated, because some nonsense like it would cost too much. Even though sellers of travel and hair braiders and tanning salons are all regulated, so it is more a nonsense objection that is as dumb as ants.

I could go into more of their objections and reasons, but it is all nonsense and political fluff. What it all comes down to, is a belief that a smaller percentage of people experience the justice system than experience medicare or the VA. So free universal justice is worse than free universal healthcare. But the costs of it being terrible are absorbed by untermenschen. This ignores that millions of people come into contact with police, and are passionate voters.

One of the more interesting objections to developing big data to research the justice system, is all the research would be biased! Universities would just twist it around to prove everyone is innocent, or everyone should be let out or something. That is pretty funny. But there would be honest research also, and it could improve the product.

People say regulation of police would reduce policing, increase costs, increase crime. I think the whole product needs to be improved, the costs need to go up. The salaries need to go up.

I like to remind people that after the SEC was created, Wall Street didn't sell less stock. They sold more stock than ever. And at higher prices like in the dotcom bubble. Because the SEC protected the brand of stock promoters in general. It changed the incentives a little, to long run collective brand improvement, rather than individual get rich quick schemes. (Not that I don't have complaints about the SEC.)

An independent institution in the executive branch at the state level to compel reporting, and proactively investigate police and prosecutors (so that investigations are not initiated by criminals and prosecuted by the mob) would make being a cop a higher-paying job. Like a doctor, which it should be.

You have to spend the money, justice should be a more sophisticated enterprise than it currently is. It is costly but it is worth the money.



Black communities want more cops? I thought Republicans don't believe polls. I don't even remember where that came from. But when Republicans are suddenly telling me what black people want, I can no longer hear them over my own laughing. Did black people overwhelmingly vote for the "defund the police" party? Do they support Raphael Warnock? Do black people really like socialism, gun control, abortion, and cross-dressers? Or don't they have firsthand experience that police victimize innocent black people in an "unfair" way, and people like you think it is a low cost relative to amusing Karens with a mirage of solving crime.

I am tired of this crap of threatening people that you must be allowed to victimize the innocent or there will be "anarchy." Anarchy is a word from the fantasies of bored teenagers, with no real-world meaning. There is not a cop in the world who has spent sufficient time contemplating the history of human social organization, that he can point to a time and place in history where the anarchy he predicts ever existed. It never did.

The most common use of the term anarchy by people who have some idea what they are talking about, is what one guy called "might makes right" or similar to when James Madison said "anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger".

When you use the name "Peace Through Strength" rather than something like "only the process can be just", and then you tell me that you get to decide, without the voter knowing what you are doing, who will be framed as the big fish through the use of lies, it looks to me like you are the one who has already created anarchy, meaning strength without justice, governance, oversight, or checks and balances.

You indicated you are aware of people lying in court. I hear the same thing from cops quite often, even judges. Where is the record of it you made when you saw it, so that voters can decide if it is the right amount of perjury? Did a majority of voters really knowingly grant you the right to overlook perjury, or even demand it? You say hey, it's the best we got, nobody is perfect. But is that for you to decide, or for the voter? Where is the politician who won on this platform of admitting there is perjury and he likes it?

The closest thing in the United States to the "anarchy" or dominance of the strongest faction which James Madison said would result from a lack of checks and balances, is the regulation of police and prosecutors by the local political majority faction, so that they can victimize the minority without any interference, or constraint by the Constitution or legislature. They just lie and pretend they complied with the Bill of Rights, and nobody has the information and jurisdiction to stop them. You are the anarchist.

And once again, I do not care about black people. I do not watch MSNBC like you, or even have a TV. I see Breonna Taylor as a general historical class of minority, who has a mob incited against her as an untermenschen.

When police and prosecutors face no consequence for victimizing the innocent, that is anarchy.

You will never convince me to be happy that every town has a gang of sociopaths who can go around victimizing anyone they want, and cover up the evidence, and there is nobody to stop or investigate them. And then libel whoever they victimize sufficiently that the local 51% majority accepts whatever evil they have covered up.

You said "If we only needed as many cops as doctors, I'd agree." There are currently more doctors than cops in the US. There is generally agreed to be a "doctor shortage". One major political issue is how to pay for more doctors. Another is how to pay for fewer police.

Taken together with your sudden belief in polls, to say contrary to actual voting results that black people don't want to defund the police, this is more evidence of your vain delusion of the role of cops in the world. What cops do is so important we need 10% more of them, we need more of them than doctors, it is justified to lie and victimize the innocent to do what they do, and they are a "thin blue line" against "anarchy", defined as an imaginary situation that has never even existed.

If a robber comes to my house, at least I have some hope to shoot him. A cop can come over and abuse me all day, and there is nobody I can call who won't tell me I need 10% more cops abusing me.



I am more interested in the fourth, fifth, and sixth. In practice, my right to own a gun is not worth much. Because the local samurai will just use it as an excuse to arrest me on some technicality, or lie about it as an excuse to blow my head off, or lie about me and stage evidence if I ever use it, to give me life in prison.

So no, owning some puny little gun is worth zero if you are not politically connected or friends with the sheriff. It just makes you a target like in feudal Japan. So if Beto wants to come take everyone's guns, that is fine. Because I am already beat by the crooked scumbag local political establishment, and a little gun can do nothing to fight that. I do not have any delusional fantasy that a little gun can change that I am already beat, they will only use it against me.

At least if I lived in Africa and someone kidnapped my friend for no more reason than to impress his friends, I would have some hope to go into the jungle and get her. And she would not be locked in a box out there for 70 years.

This should not be complicated for Republicans to understand. Ann is trying to convince people they should be happy Breonna got shot, and it won't happen to them. But what people see, is Republicans arguing that anyone with a drug mugshot should be shot without a trial like in China. And then they vote Democrat. And it is not an accident. Ann structures her argument to appeal to people who really do believe black people should get shot. So she makes an argument look what kind of a person this is. Rather than, for example, arguing extensively about what it is like to serve a warrant, and how warrants are imperfect but necessary or something like that. Rather than argue the abstract principles, Ann goes right to the person and says this was an awful person. Because that is what people pay her $20 for. And when voters see Republicans paying Ann $20 to trash a dead girl, they run to the other party. No matter how many dogs Ann retweets on Twitter.

Whether or not you believe in free will, there is a point when the laws of physics determine someone's fate, such as when you are falling from a building. The laws of physics do not permit Trump to continue as President, regardless of any decision he might make.

Sowell wrote "Human beings have been making mistakes and committing sins as long as there have been human beings. The great catastrophes of history have usually involved much more than that. Typically there has been an additional and crucial ingredient - some method by which feedback from reality has been prevented, so that a dangerous course of action could be blindly continued to a fatal conclusion."

The Republican Party is trapped like a fly in a glass by the stubborn miscalculation of its members. This idea of using the Insurrection Act is as deluded as the self importance of the Republicans who use lies keep my friend in prison for a crime that didn't happen. It is as wrong as Newt Gingrich thinking the riots would make Democrats desperate by mid September. It is as doomed as Ann trying to convince people they should be happy Breonna Taylor is dead, or that they perceive no cost from Jacob Blake getting shot in the back. The Republican Party will continue blindly in a delusion, and will continue to lose elections, until all members who embrace the delusion are displaced.

The perception of moral superiority and invincibility blinds people to the reality that they are evil losers. It convinces them they are in the majority, and their election loss can only be fraud, when in reality their policies are sick and evil. They will keep getting beat up until they are dead.

Honestly what kind of sick people lock my friend up life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen using lies, and then think they can explain to my face that it is a good thing and I should be content with it, or that it didn't happen. Sick evil deluded people on a rail to ruin past the point of no return.

I can tell you the exact moment Trump lost this election. It was when he went to Wisconsin after Jacob Blake got shot. People expected him to talk about the greatest cost of all, the tragedy of a man getting shot in the spine and paralyzed. But instead he walked around and looked at the broken glass of the buildings or something, and talked about the small business owners hurt by riots.

I think it was right before he went there, that Trump made some comment about cops who "choke" or something. Whatever it was, Trump needed to "speak from the heart" like that, on the tragedy of a man being shot in the spine, and why it is necessary, and whether anything can be changed or done better to mitigate such events. At the very least he should have tried to explain why it is the best people can do in a tragic world. Of course he does not have the freedom to just say Jacob Blake is a dirtbag like Ann says of Breonna Taylor, and it is actually a benefit that he is shot.

So Trump needed to go to Wisconsin, and say "You don't like seeing a man get shot in the spine. And I don't like it either. And blah blah blah." And really put some time and thought and energy into something that really bothers a lot of voters. But instead he followed the lead of the Republican Party, that the opinions of voters who don't like seeing a man get shot in the spine are illegitimate and irrelevant. So illegitimate and irrelevant, that you don't even need to address those beliefs, but just assume they are in a minority.

Republicans will tell you in private emails they passed some police reforms, and the Democrats weren't interested. But the reality is Republicans were shy about it, because they knew many of their constituents didn't like it. They did not get on their soap box and try to beat up the Democrats for not going along with the policing reforms, like they did with virus cash, where they reminded voters every day that Democrats were stopping them from sending another $1200 or whatever. Republicans never used leadership like Reagan would have, to sell the position of one side, to the other side who disagreed.

People have utopian visions for policing or anything else. In reality, they should just cut back. Either that or maybe send the military into Portland, LOL.



I think it may have been Thomas Sowell in "Migrations and Cultures" who said the periods of fastest advancement in China were between dynasties when the government was weakest. Ann Coulter hints at utopia that is more like China than Hong Kong.

Freedom, not peace through strength, is the source of creation. This was argued by the physiocrats when a new bourgeois emerged unregulated by feudal rulers and traditions.

It is some very sick people who think using lies to put my friend in prison for 70 years is a road to utopia. They are Republicans and they must be plowed under.

The reason we lost states' rights in the 1800s is not because there weren't people willing to die for them. There were people willing to die to take them away. All Republicans have to do is say we would rather Breonna wasn't dead. Then they would have a majority and could have anything they want. Instead of overwhelmling enemies.

You are in the minority. You are not going to get anything you want. Republicans need to stop deluding themselves over election fraud. They need to somehow become aware of reality. It's a slow process when you don't believe anyone, for thinking everyone is a marxist.

You are a joke. My friend is serving life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen, because Republicans use lies to amuse other Republicans. And you have the sick delusion to say you are for Liberty?

What liberty is it that you have even lost? Your taxes are too high? Ann Coulter wants taxes raised. You can't drive 80? Move to Montana. You have to wear a mask? I don't have to. It's just a joke, you have not even lost any liberty worth caring about. And that is why you are not in the street protesting, you are not winning elections. You haven't even lost anything.

I am here complaining about someone's liberty, others are complaining about Breonna's life. You claim to be for life and liberty, but you spend all day arguing why two people who were not given due process should lose their entire lives. You argue against life and liberty all day. That is all Republicans do, is argue why this person should be dead, that person should lose his liberty.

You are not for life and liberty.

I just can't even understand how Republicans became so subhuman that they use lies to lock up a 21-year-old girl life without parole for a crime that didn't happen, and then are so dumb, deluded, or evil, or all three, to blather about liberty and the Constitution.

Honestly, are you a sick sick sick deluded evil idiot? Are you criminally insane?

You are standing up for free speech, I have had two posts removed on Breitbart today, where I advocated that cops who break the law be punished using the law.



Instead of having all these cops, why not just let all victims of homicide die, not just victims of cops? If homicide is not really worth arguing about, and it is up to people to navigate and avoid it themselves, then why have homicide detectives?

Why is death so unimportant when a cop does it, but the taxpayer has to spend a fortune and people have to go to prison when anybody else does it?

If death is necessary to achieve other goals, and voters who don't like death are to be ignored, then we should just let all voters die and spend the cop money somewhere else.



How many times are you going to say things that have no basis in reality, like there are more cops than doctors, or down-ballot Republicans got more votes than Trump? Trump did a million votes better than Republicans in the House of Representatives. They won because of gerrymandering. I previously explained this in two posts, only to have you complain that I responded twice. If Trump and Biden got the exact same number of votes as Republicans and Democrats in Congress in their states, Trump would have certainly lost the popular vote, and by my calculation also lost the electoral vote.

In fact I have never pushed any such "racial BS" and you cannot quote any such thing from me regarding black people getting shot. I do believe people are racist, and it manifests in systemic racism. Is a racially diverse country more likely to have coerced testimony and longer sentences, because people assume injustice will be absorbed by untermenschen? Is police and prosecutor misconduct allowed against people who lack political connections, which black people are less likely to have?

The result is that white people like me suffer injustice, and seek to destroy Republicans to save our own lives, not because we care about black people. Where have I ever said that I care about black people, rather than what I have actually said which is that I do not?

As long as you continue to hallucinate, and embrace delusional beliefs, your party will continue to lose.

One of the things I mention on my web site, is I was surprised by the extent to which people I meet on the street have similar experiences with police. Like literally everywhere I go in this extremely rural area where I live. If I provide the slightest suggestion to get them going, rural people will start ranting about cops lying and being crooked as if it is Boss Hog or Sheriff Lobo.

Prior to that experience, I spent years trying to understand why so many people didn't like Republicans and were so angry, and even voted Democrat. I came up with a lot of theories, and never typed one up because they were not very concrete or convincing. It was exciting when I realized millions of people hated cops, and were causing Republicans to lose elections against radical socialist crazies by 0.4%.

At first, I thought it would be valuable to Republicans to discover why they are having to work so hard to barely win. If you begin with this knowledge that white people have bad experiences with cops and the justice system, you can predict a lot of things correctly and explain a lot of things. But I was disappointed to discover that Republicans are hopelessly vain and disconnected from reality, and incapable of learning such a simple reality that is not hard to find evidence of.

So slowly, over just a few months of talking to them, I came to believe Republicans are disconnected from reality and cannot win and are pure evil in many cases. And while there are a lot of Gadsden and Confederate flags in front of homes in my area, I saw few or zero Trump signs or flags. Most of those are in more commercial or industrial areas, in front of businesses. The sign closest to me was a Biden sign in a community area. And I was surprised it lasted.

I still believe the thin blue line flag is bad math for Republicans. They came up dry at the old crime well. They lost. They are in the minority. They say lotto is a tax on people who are bad at math. The criminal justice issue is a tax on Republican politicians who are bad at math. And like COVID, it mostly strikes politicians 60 and over.

Even this clown Limbaugh is like "I don't know why we lost, I still believe we are in the majority and these cop haters are in the minority." A cop did an illegal search on Limbaugh's doctor, and everyone from Limbaugh to Coulter thinks it was immoral. Limbaugh had to spend who knows how much in legal fees to overcome it. This clown Limbaugh thinks oh, it was just me, it is because I am Republican and the prosecutor is a Democrat, I am a victim, I get unfair biased treatment, nobody else has to deal with what I have to deal with. News for hedonist hippie FM-type Limbaugh: Every white dude has cops breaking the law to take his life and his family's life. And zero percent of them have the kind of money and platform you have, to do anything about it. So yeah, you hate cops, they hate cops. You are in the majority and you didn't even know it.

There is certainly nothing unique about my story that they let dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for claiming my friend confessed. It happens unknown thousands of times. My best estimate, is the inmate is lying 99.9% of the time, and the person they convict with it is innocent more than 50% of the time.

They literally tell inmates "Anyone who can find out what this other inmate is accused of and claim he confessed to it gets out of prison." And the stories don't even have to be remotely consistent with the evidence to create a conviction, for more reasons than I will list here. Some reasons are it is the only complete story of the crime the jury hears from a witness, rather than fragment and pieces. In some instances it works the other way, the judge only allows evidence which is consistent with what the witness claims the inmate confessed to.

Like suppose there is weed in an apartment, and the defendant went their to smoke weed. If there was also a gun buried under the defendant didn't know about, and an inmate claims the defendant confessed to going there to get the gun, the judge will allow the prosecution to show the jury the gun, and won't allow the defense to show the jury the weed.

You are not allowed to tell the jury anything unpleasant about felons, because left-wing judges didn't want juries to be biased against them as defense witnesses. Jurors have no idea there is no penalty for perjury, and they think the prosecutor would not want perjury, and you are not allowed to tell them the truth. It is a sick sick scam which people like you are like "So we let actual dangerous felons out, and give innocent people life, who cares, I don't believe anyone hates us for that."

I have spoken to girls whose cases were settled who I knew were best friends with other girls in the jail, because they told me. And when I asked them about the other girl after their case was settled, they denied having heard of the other girl. Because they were afraid if they admitted knowing the other girl, the State would bring their charges back and threaten them with life if they didn't claim the girl they knew confessed.



They are saying they resent the checks and balances promoted higher up the page. If they want to make their own laws and be exempt from state law, they should just be honest about it. They won't get to use state prisons. They want to secede from their own state. They want enforce what they wish the law was, the way they wish the law permitted it to be enforced. Unhcecked Tyranny of the local majority, with no external check to protect the rights of anyone unpopular.



The justice system is too retarded to figure out who is guilty of murder. It just ends up how politically popular you are.



Trivia question for Loeffler: In the United States, what institution is the designed check or balance, given an independent and adversarial role to regulate local police, and their encroachment by government on individual freedom and happiness?



My sister's thesis advisor(?) wrote a somewhat popular book about "Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust." He proves that ordinary Germans were not unaware of Jews being killed as some claim. Rather they thought it was an ordinary and reasonable daily activity to kill thousands of Jewish citizens.

He opens his book with a story of German soldiers who are requested to sign a pledge that they would not steal, while slaughtering thousands of Jews in Poland. Their captain takes great offense that anyone would need to tell his men not to steal. He says their adherence to norms of morality and conduct derive from their own free will, and not from any pledge or fear of punishment.

According to this author, the Man on the Clapham omnibus in Germany in the 1930's would have found it unreasonable and imprudent to let a Jew live.

Ordinary Germans



If hispanic people didn't drink in their front yards and act like animals, we wouldn't need the Jump Out Boys to jump out and shoot them. This is clearly a direct and inevitable consequence of their own poor life choices of untermenschen, that we need to pay cops to shoot them. Anyone who calls Republicans "nazis" is just an inarticulate person who can't come up with rational arguments.



We all love a good shooting. I hope the dog wasn't hurt.



Hey Jeanine, ain't it crazy how all you have to do is advocate shooting black people, and suddenly you are the go-to expert on everything?



What Ann is really objecting to is not Democrats, it is county-specific justice, aka "Boss Hogg justice." Ann Coulter calls Thomas Sowell "inestimable". Then she ignores Sowell's central life thesis, that problems are about the incentives and constraints built into processes, not replacing the bad people with the good people.



The term "vagus" appears nowhere in Ann's million pages of writing.



In Miami, I could not even open the door to a single business, without getting shouted at for not wearing a mask. This includes small privately owned gas stations. Every food truck and empanada window I went to had a sign that said masks are required while ordering, and had mask shamers who enforced it.

Even in rural Florida, 100% of large businesses like Walmart and Publix and Wynn Dixie and Home Depot required masks, around 80% of chain businesses required masks, and around 50% of mom-and-pop businesses required masks.

Anyone who lives in Florida, would know masks are required and are worn. I don't pretend to know if people in California actually wear them.



Ann has never seen a murder trial before.



I thought you didn't want newspapers to have sovereign immunity, to promote false and malicious gossip for clicks.



You might also say it is wrong they have to work for food.

Others might argue they should be thankful for the opportunity to work for food, or to influence the fate of their enemies. But you believe your own moral superiority exempts you from having to make an argument.

You are like a utopian who says everyone has the right to a living wage, or to a nice house, or to have their preferences served without ever needing to advocate for themselves.

And Thomas Sowell says, if the world is imperfect, it is only because others are evil.



So let's have a vote.

Should we get rid of the Bill of Rights, and make it legal to shoot anyone whom a faction of people on Twitter label as a rapist?

I suspect you would demand a recount, after that vote.

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 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.



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.



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.



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?



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 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?



COMPARING POLITICIANS TO SCIENTISTS

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.



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









WHAT IS A WHITE SUPREMACIST?

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?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-tucker-carlson-is-very-worried-about-bidens-war-on-white-supremacists?ref=home

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 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.



Why did AJ Crooms have to get shot?



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.



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".

THE LAWLESSNESS OF FLORIDA POLICE

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.



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.

https://www.breitbart.com/law-and-order/2021/01/24/watch-cop-car-runs-over-tacoma-crowd-who-attacked-vehicle/

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.

Political Activism and Ideology



Many have a goal to change the world. Our goal here is presumably to improve legal institutions in Florida. To pursue that goal, it is helpful to understand how people from across the political spectrum think, and what kinds of arguments they will respond to. Others have argued that conservatives have a more detailed and tragic view of the world, whereas liberals have a more cartoon unconstrained view of the world. In the conservative view, cops have to shoot black teenagers because there is no better option. In the liberal view, man can have his evil and aggressive nature reduced through community programs.

The difference I want to address today, is the view of a stable world, compared to a dynamic world, and how that leads people on the left and right to view justice issues. The best example of the stable world view is Warren Buffett. When bitcoin went to 20k and crashed, almost everyone took a dynamic view. People either thought bitcoin would go to the moon, or go to zero. Warren Buffett was unique in that he compared bitcoin to gold. Buffett said from the Second World War to today, gold underperformed stocks. While stocks went up during that period from earnings, gold went more sideways. And bitcoin, Buffett suggested, would do the same.

Miraculously, bitcoin defied the predictions of everyone but Warren Buffett. The price spent the next two years relatively close to where it had been the previous two years. Presumably this view that things will continue as they have been, is the secret to Buffett's investment success. He finds companies that have been around a long time, with stable brand names, that are in some kind of crisis. And he buys stock cheap, on the assumption the company will continue on as it had been. The companies return to a stable state, and Buffett makes billions.

In general, those on the right take a more dynamic view of the world. They think the cities are about to be overrun by criminals, or Obama will crash the stock market, or the President will go to jail, or whatever. We are always at the end of America, always on the verge of a revolution. And those on the left think you can just raise tax rates, and rich people will just pay more in taxes rather than change their activities, and revenues will go up, and the rest of the world will go on unchanged. You can use examples from healthcare, minimum wage, foreign policy, employment, whatever. Those on the left do not fear job losses from left-wing policies. Republicans think the climate was never in a steady state, and we can't possibly control it. Democrats think the climate will remain in a steady state, as long as we don't touch it.

In justice, Democrats are already open to change. They don't fear that any change or experimentation can have disastrous consequences. Democrats think you can add any bizarre law or case law, without thinking through the long-term dynamic effects, and how it will play out in real life. For example, they think prosecutors objecting to defendants striking jurors from identifiable racial groups, will help defendants. When Democrats advocated new "rehabilitation" and "root causes" approaches to criminology in the 1960's, Republicans had a terrible time persuading them the result was a catastrophic rise in crime. This after crime rates had been dropping for decades.

In justice, Republicans believe any effort to change or improve, is an effort by leftists to subvert and undermine civilization, and destroy the world. Which it may be. So Republicans need dynamic arguments, to be persuaded of impending doom as a result of flawed and corrupt criminal justice instititions. Here are some of the arguments I have come up with, to appeal to Republicans' dynamic view of the world:

1) Rather than conserving our effective criminal justice system, we have allowed it to backslide and change for the worse. There are specific examples of new things, that weren't around in the 60's or 80's, so that criminal justice is changing and has changed, and moved away from the good state you want to conserve.

2) Example: The Supreme Court decision in Connick v Thompson in 2011, changed the behavior of prosecutors. It emboldened them that they could hide evidence and victimize the innocent, without any possible consequences. So prosecutors are becoming more emboldened over time, to try to win votes with a coliseum show of mock trials and false convictions.

3) Example: "Hands Up Don't Shoot" - After Ferguson in 2014, and Heather Mcdonald's book "The War on Cops" in 2016, there is a backlash of mayors and sheriffs and voters, who have become more willing to protect police from accusations of misconduct, to hide misconduct, and to make sure there are no consequences for any accusations of police misconduct. This has resulted in another backlash from citizens, in the form of the "defund the police" movement. Policing and crime policy have entered a volatile state, as a result of a lack of a strong underlying regulatory structure for police at the state level. So things are on a trend for the worse and into volatile territory.

4) Perceptions affect reality like the stock market. The more you have a preconception that police don't lie, or that prosecutors don't supervise witnesses to lie, the more lying they will find they can get away with before anyone believes it is happening or reacts. So the preconceptions that there is not a problem, allows policing problems to grow in plain sight. And you are blinded to the changes by your own preconceptions, until they reach a crisis. It may tend to defy your perceptions like the stock market. The more skepticism accusations of police misconduct are prejudged with, the more misconduct police can get away with, before facing any consequences. So it is like a financial market bubble, followed by a crash.

5) Jailhouse witnesses probably started out as one real witness in the 1960's. In the time since, everyone in prison has learned they can get out just by claiming they overheard another inmate confess, even as every defendant has learned religiously his right to remain silent. This has grown into a way for prosecutors to avoid the spirit of the Bill of Rights, by coercing confessions, and letting dangerous felons out of prison as a reward for lying to fix the outcome of show trials. The reliability of jailhouse witnesses collapsed as their use exploded, and the second-round effect has been a collapse in the credibility of jury trials and the justice system, and a relocation of guilt determination to appeals courts. This is still in flux with liberals in charge, and can only be brought to a steady state by eliminating the underlying problem.

6) Felony murder laws and life sentences for drugs, have increased the use of plea bargains and coerced testimony. This is results in an increase, over time, of the amount of years of prison given out based on the coerced testimony of drug felons. So the original cause, an increase in sentences, over time leads to an increase in perjury, and then to people voting for Democrats and judges who let everyone out, the exact opposite of the original intention. When you increase drug sentences, it doesn't just reduce drugs. It sets in motion all kinds of effects and case law, that end up perverting the justice system with no end in sight.

7) Over time, the justice system manufactures Democrat voters with a greater persistence and inevitability than immigration. People whose family members have been wronged by their government, have longer memories and more passion than any other type of voter. Suppose cops lie about just 50 people a year in 10,000 incidents (one lie in every 200 incidents). Multiply that little lie times four family members, times 20 counties per states, times 50 states, times 20 years. That is four million voters who run to the other party if Republicans align themselves with police and prosecutors and the justice system. This number is growing as I type like the national debt.

8) Even honest and functional police and prosecutors, enforcing good laws that make too many people into criminals, can destroy the country. 2 million people with long prison terms equals 6 million family members voting for radical nihilist judges who will let everyone out. DeTocqueville would recognize the unsteady state: What happens when the voters realize they can vote their family members out of prison? What appears on the surface to be a steady reduction of crime through incarceration, is actually a gathering storm of nihilists who will sweep Democrats into political office.

9) The Bar and the legal political machine, have evolved like any institution or movement, to become more self-interested and more self-perpetuating over time. It has evolved to where the only interest of The Bar is to protect members of The Bar, judges are completely captive to local politics rather than abstract justice, and it is impenetrable like Sicilian omerta. Just as the justice system needed to come up with new tactics when the Sicilian mafia evolved to defeat their existing measures, so too are new measures needed to break up the tightening and democratically unresponsive grip of the justice overclass. The end can come cataclysmically under Democrats, or in an orderly way if addressed in time by Republicans.

10) Finally, liberals don't want to fix the justice system. They want to keep it in a steady state of dysfunction, so they can use it to paint Republicans as racist for defending it, and generate steady votes for Democrats each election cycle. This actually results in a steadily growing takeover of national and ultimately state offices by Democrats - with progressively worse results - until Republicans fix the justice system. Or until it is too late, the point of no return has been crossed. Then everyone will get out of prison anyway, except Republicans.

If Democrats are always on an Easter egg hunt - always finding simple ways to improve the world - Republicans are always between a rock and a hard place. Except in one area. Republicans think increasing life sentences, and lying in court, and shooting people who haven't been convicted of a crime - and increasing the role of municipal employees in day-to-day human fate - are somehow a free lunch to improve the world. They either think someone else will suffer the hard place. Or, like Democrats, Republicans don't imagine any adverse consequences to their justice policies. They need to be shown the hard place.

Jailhouse Witnesses Release Two To Convict One

I already knew the essence of jailhouse witnesses, is to let dangerous felons out of prison, to convict the innocent, and create a facade of solving violent crime. The witnesses they released to convict my friend of a crime that didn't happen, included a crack addict who did incessant home burglaries, an armed fentanyl dealer repeat offender who sold fentanyl in the county jail and set up an aggravated home invasion battery, and a carjacker who did repeat batteries, took a victim across the state, and ended in a high-speed stop-stick chase.

But after talking to girls in prison, I realized jailhouse witnesses are even worse than that. They prevent the ordinary plea bargain system from functioning, by making it impossible for people who actually want to tell the truth about what really happened, to convict the guilty.



Every girl in prison knows you can get out of prison, by finding out details of another girl's case, embellishing it, and swearing she confessed to the crime. When my friend was in Orange County Jail, Ishnar Lopez-Ramos, the infamous mommy killer, claimed my friend confessed to a crime involving two guns. Police believed there was only one gun. But girls in jail know the prosecution wants two guns, to make sure everyone has a gun in their hand and cannot plead innocence.

The most ridiculous thing, is the credibility of jailhouse witnesses is supposed to be based on whether their claimed story is corroborated by other evidence. In other words, the closer the claimed confession is to the story in the newspaper or police report, the more credible the jailhouse witness is supposed to be.



Corroboration is like I say I graduated from Harvard. You say there is a place called Harvard, people do graduate from there... This checks out! This is true!

The way actual jailhouses witnesses work in the real world, is they adjust one fact. Suppose I say "My girlfriend used to file her nails on the sofa, I always hated that." The jailhouse witness will adjust it to "He said he hated his girlfriend and he always wanted to kill her. He said he started wanting to kill her when she filed her nails on the sofa."

But the best jailhouse witnesses are the ones that completely ignore anything the suspect actually says, and recite straight from the newspaper. In the real world, jailhouse witnesses who recite anything the suspect actually said, get more things wrong, and are less useful in court. It is best to say the narrative the prosecution is promoting, rather than whatever random things someone actually rants about in prison, which are often jokes, lies, and bravado.

The idea that talking about "corroborating" details of your case in jail will put you at risk of jailhouse witnesses, is therefore false. In my experience, the things suspects actually say in jail, have no bearing on the things jailhouse witnesses say to juries that result in conviction. The two are not as connected as people think. And you cannot stop jailhouse witnesses, simply by not talking about your case. Even if you actually admit guilt to a fellow inmate, what you admit will usually not line up with the story the prosecution is promoting. It will disagree with other evidence and witnesses. Ranting out loud in jail actually muddies the waters, as often as not.

A jailhouse witness who ignores or never even meets the suspect, and instead recites what is in the papers and on TV, is better corroborated.

In reality, there is literally no way for a judge or anyone else to know if a jailhouse witness is telling the truth. And given there are 1,000 girls wanting to get out of prison, for every one criminal who actually confesses, there is literally no reason to believe any jailhouse witness is telling the truth. And nor is this just a mathematical theory. When DNA came out and they took another look at old convictions, they proved what anyone can guess, the jailhouse witnesses were lying.



The only reason the jury doesn't guess it, is they can't imagine judges and lawyers and the legislature would put a liar in front of them to convict the innocent. And you are not allowed to tell them. Jurors aren't really weighing the credibility of the jailhouse witness, they are weighing the credibility of the prosecutor who lets the witness out of prison, and of the voter who votes for that prosecutor.

Even in states where the judge is allowed to block a jailhouse witness, it is supposed to be based on whether the story fits with other evidence. Meaning whether the liar read the newspaper. And with the victim's parents crying outside the courthouse, no judge can politically afford to throw out the jailhouse witness anyway. The local circuit court judge is captive to the same political incentives as the police and prosecutors. Judges everywhere are always able to acquit the defendant if they think the jailhouse witness is unreliable. And they never do. Even though they know exactly what is going on.

So all a jailhouse witness has to do, is figure out a few details of the case, and embellish the rest. Like it was 3:00 PM, they drove down Main Street, and the suspect confessed she got out and shot the victim. Now let's look at how this releases the additional person who actually committed the crime, on top of releasing a career felon victimizer who is already in prison.

Suppose someone kills the President. And police have an idea who did it, but they have no idea how they did it. So they go to the house where a group of roommates live, and find a gun that matches the bullet that killed the President. So they arrest the guy who lives in the room where the gun was found, and his girlfriend. But the case is pretty thin.

The girlfriend is angry as can be at her boyfriend. She had nothing to do with it. So she starts telling everyone "My psycho boyfriend did it. He went up in a hot air balloon and shot the President from a mile away. I saw where he hid the balloon." So every girl in jail hears that, and they immediately run to the prosecutor "The girl confessed. She said she shot the President from a hot air balloon. She told me where she hid it."

Suddenly, the girl is no longer able to take a plea bargain to testify against her boyfriend. Because if she goes up on the stand and tells the story that really happened with the hot air balloon, she will be corroborating the detail the other girls claim she confessed to, that there was a hot air balloon. So suddenly the actual witness is unable to take a plea bargain and testify. And the real witness who tried to do what people supposedly want, which is to testify against the actual perpetrator, gets life in prison. And the actual perpetrator walks. And the dangerous felons who claim she confessed walk.

If shooting the President from a hot air balloon is too crazy, consider something more normal. A girlfriend is cheating on her boyfriend, and her boyfriend comes in the back door and shoots at both of them. The girl tells everyone exactly what happened. The jailhouse witness then takes the corroborating details and change it just a little bit: The girl told her boyfriend to come shoot the guy, and let him in the back door.

Not only does this prevent police from getting what they supposedly want, which is the girlfriend to testify against the boyfriend, it creates total silence from the start, omerta. The girlfriend walks into the police interview and says nothing. Even though her boyfriend just tried to kill her.

When prosecutors let dangerous felons out of prison for lying, the innocent go to prison, and the most aggressive victimizers of the innocent walk. And the paper says wow, we got the bad guy, great work. Because papers can print anything police say to them, with total immunity. And then people march in the streets and burn down stores and people wonder why, because their own government victimizes innocents for votes.

T-Shirt Artwork





Contact Info

2ulive on gmail



"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

"In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

"Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature"