This lady flat out says that this is a Republic and then in the next breath demands a “re-vote” “of the people”. A republic by definition is representatives voting to make decisions for you. You don’t get a vote.

The founding fathers didn’t think you were smart enough to run the country and vote on things so they wanted more educated people do it through elected representatives. Sadly, this lady is proving them right.

Both parties use these topics as talking points when it suits them, but if you are going to do it, know what they mean. ie. Republic, Electoral College, Filibuster, Democracy, Democratic-Republic, Communism, Socialism, Identity Politics, Racism, Elites, Working Class, Career Politician, Radical, Fascist, Patriot, Establishment, Landslide, Mandate, Dark Money, Feckless, Impeach, Grand Jury, Dog Whistle, Law & Order, Flip Flopper, Pro-Choice, Lame Duck.

I’m going to start trying to cover some of these since somebody needs to post the stuff somewhere so people can learn before opening their mouth and looking stupid.

For those who don’t understand the law and law enforcement’s job, this is what happens when you don’t leave upon request. And yes, a school has the right to ask you to leave.

My complaint is that the right suddenly cares about innocent until proven guilty and how our justice system works now that there are high ups in their party who are under the microscope of the criminal justice system. They have fought criminal justice reform at every opportunity. The President and his Attorney General have both pledged to be tough on crime and have rolled back nearly everything Obama did including his attempts at criminal justice reform. If that is your stance that is fine, but the problem is the hypocrisy of it. Trump is always talking about Manafort, Joe Arpaio, and so many of his other cronies being treated unfairly by the criminal justice system. When he or his buddies are in legal jeopardy suddenly it’s a problem, there’s a “deep state” and innocent until proven guilty should kick in but let me tell you about my experience.

I have been on both sides of the law. I have committed crimes and run through the system on the receiving end. I have been a police officer and helped with the other side. The truth is our system is designed around guilty until proven innocent. It makes sense because our system is based on the old British system in which the philosophy was guilty until proven innocent.

So, in most areas of the country where you aren’t dealing with a large city or federal jurisdiction and serious crimes like conspiracy, murder, and financial crimes (where they often use a grand jury), this is the process:

1. A police officer is somehow alerted to a crime.
2. The police officer investigates. This is the first place where bias and corruption can enter this equation. MOST cops are good men or women who try to conduct a good investigation. The problem is at best some cops have inherent bias as well as personality traits which affect their judgement and they will decide someone did it as soon as the investigation begins. This can taint the entire investigation and they potentially could ignore evidence which indicates another individual or at least clears the person they are suspecting. Probable Cause is the standard for an arrest. That means that the person who arrests or orders the arrest reasonably believes that a crime was committed and that a certain person committed it. When I was in police academy it was explained that you have to be 51% sure that they did it. That is not only a low standard to ruin a person’s life, but it also is low enough that you can form probable cause for multiple people, sometimes causing innocents to be swept up in the net. It’s rare that there are malicious intentions on the part of the officer, but that does occasionally happen too. Let’s also remember that in many jurisdictions we are talking about sheriff’s departments. Sheriffs are elected and as such have very little oversight and have motives other than seeking justice, ie. reelection.
3. The next step is the officer takes his report from everything he has investigated and his belief of who did it to the prosecutor. Now it’s important to know who the prosecutor is. In nearly every jurisdiction outside of federal and many municipal prosecutors or district attorneys are elected officials. Elected officials care about one thing above all else, being reelected. Everyone talks about how they don’t trust politicians and how crooked they are. If you are of this mind set, who on earth would you think that a prosecutor would be any better. So, this prosecutor, whom we hope is an honest politician, now makes the decision if the officer was right or wrong. If the prosecutor agrees he will send an application for a warrant with an affidavit from the officer to a judge. If he is worried the judge wont sign a warrant he will ask the officer to build a better case or get more evidence. The problem with this is, it assumes guilt. It actually isn’t how the system is designed to work. An arrest warrant is supposed to only be used in the situation of a flight risk or if there is a belief of potential threat to the community if the suspect isn’t allowed to remain free. The application for arrest warrant process in most jurisdictions is outside traditional due process and should only be used in those two situations. The process doesn’t allow for the accused to defend himself against their freedom being taken away, at least not immediately. The proper way this should be handled if there is no flight risk and threat of danger to the community, is by issuing the suspect a summons to court, where a arraignment hearing can be held and evidence can be presented by both sides on whether the suspect, now defendant must be incarcerated or should be allowed to remain at large until trial. The prosecutor wants this person locked up as soon as possible and will start issuing press releases about the arrest and bad the crime is and the defendant. It all revolves around scaring the defendant to take a plea so that the prosecutor can keep a high conviction rate with as little work as possible.
4. Next a warrant is usually issued. Judges rarely deny a prosecutor anything. Judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys are often buddies and play golf together, have dinner together and are members of all the same social clubs.
5. After the warrant is issued it goes back to the police to serve the warrant and take the person into custody.  Some warrants have a bond set immediately by a judge, others do not.
6. So, if they find the person they are looking for they are taken into custody and if a bond is already set they are given the opportunity to bond, if not they are held until a judge can set a bond. Some states have statutory limits on how long this can be, they are usually more progressive blue states. It’s not traditionally the view of the right that people accused of a crime have rights until it is one of them who is accused.
   1. Bonding Out: So, there are options of how to post a bond or bail. The concept is that you are posting something of financial value that will be collateral which the court holds to ensure you will appear in court. The idea behind this is flawed and assumes you are guilty. An innocent person wouldn’t be a flight risk and would appear in court. At a true bond hearing evidence can be presented by both sides. The truth is, if there is no evidence you are a flight risk or a serious risk to the community you should be released without bond or ROR’d Release on your Own Recognizance. If there is evidence you are a threat to the community you should be held without bond, and if you are a flight risk it should be a pretty high bond in proportion to your income and assets. It rarely goes this way. Rarely is anyone ROR’d unless they are a public official.
   2. CASH OR SURETY: Cash or surety means that your bond can be money you post, or a bond certificate posted by a “bondsman”. A bondsman is certified and takes responsibility for you. If you don’t show up for court, they either have to hunt you down and bring you in, or THEY must pay the entire amount of your bond to the court. You pay the bondsman a percentage of whatever you full bond is usually ranging from 5% to 20%. You will NEVER get this money back. That is how they make their money.
   3. 10% or 20% Some courts will allow you to post your own 10% or 20% of your bond as a surety, but this is rare. The advantage to posting your own bond is that you will get the money back after everything is over, minus costs and any restitution that you may be ordered to pay in court. The same applies if you have to post the full amount.
   4. COLLATERAL SURETY: If you own something outright which has significant value such as a house or sometimes a very fancy car, boat, or RV, you can often put up the title to that as a surety. The court will have you sign it over and if you don’t show they will sell it for the money.

Every step of this process is set up to assume you were guilty.

To make matters worse the court and prosecutor prefer for you to take a plea rather than have your day in court. If every person who were accused of a crime in this country went all the way to trial the system would collapse.

ATTORNEY’S FEES: Attorneys range anywhere from $100/hr way up into the thousands. Usually you must first pay a retainer fee which is generally $1000 on up. Some attorneys will say I will charge you X amount to take your case which is up until trial. A good example would be $8,000. That doesn’t sound too bad when you are in a bind and he will take payments. That’s until you realize that there is no way you are going win your case without a trial. When you discuss trial, you find out its going to be another $10,000 to $75,000. There is no way you can afford that unless you are well off, so you have now paid $8,000 for an attorney to help you plead guilty to something you may not have even done.

The fact that our legal system is set up to cost you money is unfair and assumes you are guilty. You shouldn’t have to pay a dime unless and until you are found guilty. Being accused of something you didn’t do shouldn’t have to bankrupt you.

The fact that our legal system releases your charges and whatnot as soon as you are arrested is unfair and assumes you are guilty. If you are not guilty the damage to a person’s reputation cannot be repaired. Nothing should be released unless and until you are found guilty. If you are found not guilty it should be completely erased from your record.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY: So, the fifth amendment is one of our most powerful amendments. Not only does it say you can’t be compelled to be a witness against yourself. It states that you can’t be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Which basically means they can’t charge you for the same crime twice. The problem with this is that they will do just that if they really want to get you. Let’s say you have been charged with kidnapping in State Court in Maryland. You go all the way to trial and are found not guilty. They really think you did it and want you to go down, so they refer the case to the FBI. The FBI, for whatever reason, decides they will charge you with federal kidnapping and you get to do the same thing all over again in federal court, which is much worse. You could even be found not guilty there and still be sued civilly in court for the same stuff.

• Let’s assume you are poor but are charged with a serious crime like armed robbery. For further kicks and grins, lets also assume you honestly didn’t do it, but they have convincing or maybe not even that convincing circumstantial evidence that makes it look as though you did.
• You work at McDonald’s for minimum wage. You are arrested. You have no money, as you live pay check to pay check. You own nothing, because you barely keep your bills paid in the tiny studio apartment you live in that used to be a hotel room.
• You can’t post a bond, and to make sure of it the prosecutor who is convinced you are guilty argues for a one-million-dollar bond siting that you are a flight risk as you have no ties to the community.
• You request a court appointed attorney, but the court initially denies it because you have a job and cites that you have friends and family which you can borrow the money from.
• After this first appearance in court you sit in jail for a month before going back. The judge asks you about your attorney and you remind him or her you were denied and why. The judge asks a bunch of embarrassing questions about your living situation and your job as well as family and friends. The judge orders a public defender for you.
• By this time, you have been fired from your job and eviction proceedings have begun for you crappy apartment.
• You go back to jail and two weeks later the public defender comes to meet with you. Its obvious that he/she doesn’t believe you either and really wants you to take a plea even though you really want to fight it because you didn’t do it.
• You spend another month in jail before going to court again. You are transported from jail in an orange jumpsuit by deputies in cuffs and leg shackles. Your public defender finally enters a plea of not-guilty on your behalf. A trial date is set for 6 months away.
• Your Public defender keeps working on a deal for you, which takes a whole year. By the time they take you to court to change your plea to guilty and take the deal you have been in county jail for a year and 3 months. You are sentenced to 5 years’ probation for a reduced FELONY charge of stealing and credit for time served. To top it all off you find out you have to pay $30 a day for every day you were in jail, $250 in court costs and restitution of $2,300. For a total of $16,140 which is almost as much as you made in a year at McDonalds. You also have to pay a monthly fee to the probation officer.
• You get out of jail with no place to live and no job. You don’t qualify for any public housing because you are a felon, and no one wants to hire you because you are a felon.
• Your probation officer tells you how lucky you are to be charged with a felony and not have to spend time in prison, and in the same breath tells you that if you don’t get a job and pay your monthly fees as well as court costs and restitution that it is a violation of your probation and you WILL go to prison.
• You can drink. You can’t “associate” with anyone known to have committed a crime. If you so much as get pulled over or get a parking ticket you are to report it to your probation officer immediately. You can’t leave the state. You have no rights and your probation officer can come into your home without a warrant at any time. You have to take regular drug tests which you have to pay for, even though you have NEVER done drugs in your life and weren’t charged with a drug offense.
• You are homeless, jobless, and have all this over your head and you didn’t even do anything.
• You, like so many others decide you are better off in prison, where you have a bed and meals. You violate your probation, get sent to prison where you meet people who accept you and teach you to be a real criminal.

NOW, don’t get me wrong. There are real criminals who DO commit crimes. There are also those who commit crimes by mistake and do so because they feel they have no other choice.

Our system needs reforming. We need to treat people as if they are innocent until a jury of their peers has found them guilty or having been given equal chance to defend themselves admit they are guilty.

We also need to quit lumping every person who breaks the law together in one big pot. A first-time offender especially can be reformed under the right circumstances and it’s a lot cheaper than putting them in and out of prison for the rest of their life.

There is also a huge distinction of someone who gets a speeding ticket and fails to appear in court and someone who just murdered their parents! Many states have created failure to appear warrants which are treated as badly as serious crimes when the initial “crime” was only an infraction. Not to mention the proceeding court cases have fees which are so high they break people. Many people fail to appear because they can’t afford to pay the fine or get out of work to appear in court. People need to be more responsible for their mistakes, but the justice system also needs to be a bit more accommodating to these little situations.

We also need a national “ban the box” initiative. You shouldn’t be denied housing or a job just because of a felony. If you served your time, that should be it. Granted some jobs require a higher standard, but even most of those should allow someone to explain themselves and consider the amount of time since the offense. Some states have what is called a rehabilitation certificate. These are great ideas. A judge determines based on the time since a crime was committed and someone’s behavior since along with other factors if they have been rehabilitated. This is treated like a pardon and allows someone to obtain employment and housing.

Another problem we have is inconsistent laws which show a disproportionate punishment based on economic classes. Crack and powder cocaine are nearly identical at the molecular level, BUT people who are charged with 1 gram of crack are given the same sentence as those found in possession of 18 grams of cocaine. What is the difference? PRICE. Crack is cheap and therefore used by people with lower incomes, powder cocaine is much more expensive and used by people with much more money. Crack is used by the guy who works at McDonalds and Powder is used by the stock broker or senator’s son.

WE NEED TO FOCUS MORE ON REHABILITATION AND LESS ON PUNISHMENT. Punishment costs the taxpayer way more and ruins lives of everyone involved. Serious crimes should still require long sentences and some even life, but we must give people a chance.

There is also the argument that we have existing gun laws that are more than enough and just need to be enforced. This line of thinking also involves the idea that those who use guns for violence buy them illegally, and new gun laws wouldn’t stop that.

Then, there is my favorite, or rather, least favorite argument on the right: A good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun. With this post, I am going to start there. We have seen time and time again situations where police officers engage these “crazed gunmen” and are themselves killed. I found myself tearing up tonight watching the news report that the most recent bar shooting resulted in Sargent being killed who responded and immediately went in to engage the shooter. Sgt. Ron Helus was a true American hero. He was a year from retirement. He didn’t wait for backup. He arrived on the scene, heard shots, and went in to try to stop this tragedy from going any further. There were also 4 off-duty officers inside at the time that the shooting began.

Let’s not forget that, as of a few years ago, EVERY state has concealed carry laws now. I have yet to hear of a heroic story, though of some brave concealed carry permit holder stopping one of the over 300 mass shootings this year or any other year, for that matter. The truth is, if you are confronted directly by someone with a gun and have a gun yourself, you are very unlikely to be able to draw a concealed weapon and stop them without first being killed. That is simply how it is. What I will be the first to acknowledge, though, is that you could defend others who are being directly confronted if you have a concealed firearm. So, someone explain to me why this argument isn’t holding. I never thought it was the solution, but at this point, I want it to be. The laws have changed to allow it because the right said it was one of the solutions to our gun violence problem, but instead of getting better, it’s getting worse.

Mass gunmen are not phased by the idea that there are people armed everywhere in this country. Those who are armed aren’t stopping gunmen.

Where the right seems to be correct, though, is that there is a lot of mental illness being revealed in many of these instances of mass shootings. The problem is, though, that saying someone is crazy after the fact is useless if you aren’t willing to do more to prevent it from happening. Mentally unstable people, as well as those with anger management and self-control issues, shouldn’t be permitted to own or possess a firearm. A firearm isn’t a television. You shouldn’t be able to go in and buy one just by not having a felony. THAT IS ALL IT TAKES THOUGH. That is easy to get around, too, if you go to a gun show. I know for a fact that there are individuals in the south who have felonies who go regularly to gun shows to buy their firearms to avoid background checks. I am sure it is true for other parts of the country too. Here is my argument and suggested solutions, as unpopular as it all is for the left and right to hear.

I am an objective centrist. I grew up in the Midwest. Most of us growing up there had guns in our everyday lives. They are part of our culture and heritage in this country. I would never advocate for their total outlaw. I even support concealed carry. The idea that just getting rid of guns at this point would stop all the gun violence is naïve. The idea that new laws and restrictions couldn’t help the problem is equally naïve. There needs to be a middle ground and common-sense rules.

For starters, let’s cover some myths.

• Criminals buy guns at gun shows
  • NO, criminals get their guns in many ways. Many mass shooters have purchased them 100% legally (which proves there is a problem with our gun laws). Gangs buy them off the black market or just steal them. However, some are felons who aren’t supposed to have guns who do use the gun show loophole to buy their guns because they believe they have a right to have one and can’t afford one off the black market.
• There is no such thing as an assault rifle
  • An assault rifle is any rifle that is designed to kill humans. This needs to be legislated and codified. A rifle for hunting animals doesn’t have a high capacity magazine or the ability to rapidly fire, there is no need.
• AR-15 is or is not an assault rifle
  • Both sides like to argue this and many other rifles (see definition above). AR stands for Armalite Rifle, which comes from the original manufacturer’s name. Those who say it stands for Assault Rifle are wrong in that respect. HOWEVER, let’s be clear on something that the right doesn’t want you to know about this rifle. It was designed for the military, but they had very little success selling to the military. Armalite sold the design to Colt in 1959. In 1963, Colt had modified it slightly and got a contract to sell to the US military, which became what we know today as the M-16. Colt was having success with the design that they decided to make a semi-automatic version to sell to law enforcement and market it as the AR-15. In the 1970s, the patent expired, and other manufacturers started making the same rifle and selling it to anyone. It is an inexpensive semi-automatic rifle, which is why they are so popular. You can purchase a magazine for an AR-15 with a capacity from 10 rounds up to 100 rounds.
• A good guy with a gun is the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun
  • I’m from Missouri, SHOW ME. I have never found an example of this happening. The only good guys with guns that stop bad guys that I have found are the police. Sadly, sometimes they even lose their lives in this pursuit.
  • I not only hope this changes, but I think with time it will change. I think that with the propagation of concealed carry, you will find more and more people coming to the aid of others in shooting situations. But it will be rare that anyone will ever defend themselves with a gun against a gun; there simply isn’t enough time. Even police officers who are heavily trained and have a gun much more readily available on duty rarely stop a guy who is about to shoot them by firing upon him.
• Liberals are trying to take your guns away
  • I HAVE NEVER heard of any politician, left or right, who has proposed taking guns away or ending the 2^nd Additionally, even most democratic politicians are pro-gun.
• The Second Amendment is under attack.
  • If anything, the opposite is true. Gun laws have loosened tremendously in the past 20 years. We now have concealed carry in every state. ALSO, most states have either completely repealed or heavily crippled their gun permit laws. There are places where you can walk in and buy a gun the same day, in a matter of minutes.
• Gun Violence is mostly perpetrated by those on the right or the left
  • If you believe this in either case,y you are a partisan hack who doesn’t think for themselves. While the right is MORE pro-gun on average and the left is less pro-gun, this isn’t a partisan issue. There are those on both sides who are very pro-gun and those on both sides who are anti-gun. AND those who argue for either side don’t tend to be the ones using the guns for violence. Ideology has nothing to do with killing, usually. It is usually a matter of mental problems or hatred. There is plenty of that on both ends of the spectrum.

So, what can we do to fix all this? Here’s what I think:

• Stop being so stubborn, no matter which side you are on. Let’s compromise for the greater good. The opposite side is not villains. Gun rights activists aren’t the ones killing people in these mass shootings, and gun control advocates aren’t trying to take your guns.
• Stop justifying your position with lies and selfish arguments. Gun shows aren’t where mass murderers tend to buy guns, and the fact that you like having what most consider an assault rifle for fun target shooting isn’t a good enough reason to not regulate it when people are being killed at the rate they are by them.
• Stop making a felony an automatic bar to owning a firearm. Is it fair that a white-collar criminal can no longer own a gun, or a kid at 18 who stole a car and has now totally turned his life around 10 years later can’t have one? Let’s be a little more subjective. This is the one place where the right has never pushed, and I don’t know why. The Second Amendment is a right. While a conviction does have due process, and it is constitutional to remove a right on that basis, shouldn’t we consider the type of conviction? Shouldn’t there be a separate process for taking away a right instead of just an automatic bar because of a felony conviction?
• PROPERLY fund the ATF for investigations, research, and enforcement.
• Create a federal firearms owner card, which could have an endorsement for concealed carry and could be just an indication on a driver’s license. With the following process.
  1. Apply with Law Enforcement (preferably the ATF), paying a fee (REASONABLE FEE $50-$100 every 5 years)
  2. Background check performed
  3. Mental health eval done, including temperament and anger management evaluations.
  4. Gun safety course
  5. 5-year recertification
  6. You only must apply once. After you have the card, you can go buy a gun like any other item, same day.
• Create a tiered system for these firearms owners, including a higher level for those who are competition shooters or dealers, just like the current FFL. This would make it so there is a more thorough background check, like a federal security clearance for those who want to own higher capacity magazines and assault weapons, and even a tier for fully automatic weapons. The tiered system would also include a level for nationwide concealed carry.
• Pass laws which require mental health professionals, including simple therapists, to report patients to the ATF so that these owner cards can be flagged or revoked.
• Pass laws that require police to be accountable. Require that when a police officer has an encounter with someone where there are accusations of violence that they do a thorough investigation and determine if it needs to be reported to the ATF system for revocation of gun rights temporarily or permanently.
• Create a gun database so each gun in the USA can be tracked, especially when it is involved in a crime. Many people have guns stolen and don’t even know what the serial number was. It often takes days or weeks to track down where a gun was sold, and even longer to figure out who it was sold to, as there are rules that currently prohibit centralized computer records.
• Make all this federal law, which trumps state law and prohibits states from trying to be stricter or less strict.

Now to dispel the arguments on the right and the left. The left is shorter, so I will cover that first. For those who say this isn’t enough. I couldn’t disagree more. I feel like this would, within 10 years, cut gun violence in half, but we don’t know if we don’t try.

For those on the right. I have had people argue that there should never be a gun database because it gives the government the ability to take your guns if they know where they all are. YEAH THAT’S THE POINT. Only if you shouldn’t have one, though. You have a constitutional right; they can’t just take your guns away, so stop being paranoid.

For those who think this card permit system is a hassle, get over it. If it could save lives and help law enforcement, that should be enough. Especially if it gives you the ability to have more rights and even makes it easier to buy guns in the long run, if you are a good guy. It shouldn’t be easier to buy a gun than a car.

Also, you aren’t worried that the government is going to take your car, and we have crazy databases on those.

For those who would like to read some interpretation on the Second Amendment itself, that is coming quite soon, and I will link to that here when it is finished.

We allow those with deep rooted biases to sneak into our law enforcement agencies. Also those with anger management, superiority and fear issues. These are the things which need to be much more heavily screened. We will never eradicate these completely in any occupation but we MUST do better with law enforcement.

These problem individuals harm our society from mere harassing traffic stops and tickets to unjustified shootings based on fear, anger and yes even at times racism.

I believe it is fixable but it requires a better understanding of law enforcement and its culture from the outside and within. So many on one side want to hate all cops, the other end of the spectrum want to blindly support all cops no matter accusations or proven wrong doing, they believe it to be unpatriotic to question this profession because of how noble it is. Both are wrong.

All first-responders just like our soldiers on the battle field are the bravest we have and know what true sacrifice means. We should respect these professions, but always remember that mere men (and women) make them up and as such are flawed, sometimes to the point they shouldn’t be in the profession. We must not protect the bad apples from accountability and we must hold the good ones up as the shining examples of our society and the real superheroes our children should look up to.

I’m no longer a police officer and haven’t been for several years. My reasons are a combination of my own demons and not being able to tolerate some of what went on. I was and today am nothing more than the average guy, but I try to see things as objectively as possible.

So many cops now want to be so much more like Harry Callahan (Dirty Harry) and not enough like Sgt. Joe Friday. The truth is that Harry was exactly what people are fighting today, a cop who has preconceptions and beliefs. He always thinks he is right and will do whatever is necessary to get what he wants and/or sees as justice. He doesn’t care about Miranda, he doesn’t care about killing. He doesn’t even care about authority himself, but he expects everyone to respect his authority.

Then There is Detective Sergeant Joe Friday. His motto is literally, “just the facts”. He only wants to hear the facts of the case. He wants to make as objective of conclusions he can when investigating. Friday understands his role as a detective and leaves innocence or guilt to the judicial system.

So many officer’s today loose sight of the fact that they don’t determine innocence or guilt. They in essence do exactly what a special counsel does for congress in an impeachment proceeding. They are SUPPOSED to investigate every angle and lead, then prepare a report which they then take to a prosecutor who makes an initial determination of probable cause. If he agrees there is probable cause to make an arrest of someone, he creates an affidavit for application of warrant which includes a probable cause statement from the police officer and takes it to a judge asking for a warrant. There is also the option in some jurisdictions as well as the federal system to take it before a grand jury to get an indictment which is simply a formal charge which begins court proceedings headed toward trial. These methods are highly flawed, but that is a topic for another post.

Now if a police officer feels the crime is serious enough and the individual they believe who committed it is a flight risk or a danger to the community they can often make a warrant-less arrest and hold someone for 20-48 hours (depending on jurisdiction) while they get a warrant from judge.

The point of all this is that a police officer is not someone who is supposed to decide if someone did something or not. Many officers now decide who committed a crime before they have really even investigated anything. The other difference between these two fictional cops is the use of force. Both men are technically detectives. In San Francisco the term of Harry’s day was Inspector. LAPD to my knowledge always used the term detective. Detectives don’t often have as much need to use force on the job as beat cops. That never stopped Harry. He is all about using his authority via force and pulling out his big .44 Magnum revolver every chance he gets. As a society we think violence is cool. I see and hear people all the time making fun of people who are nerdy or geeky or simply are more about knowledge than being physical. Then they love those who assert themselves with guns or do a million other things which are considered aggressive and assertive.

Ask yourself though, if these two men were real police officers today, which do you think would have a better record of finding the actual perpetrator of crimes? Which would have helped prosecutors have a higher conviction rate? Which would have helped prosecutors put more innocent people in jail? Which is more likely to racial profile and be unfair to minorities? To me the answer is quite obvious.

Police are part of the justice system and it is important that they focus more on the facts than their own biases and personality. Everyone has bias, everyone has their own personality which affects how they live their life. It is important for police officers not allow these things to affect their investigations. AND, they certainly shouldn’t let bias or personal issues affect their use of force.

Sadly, you can’t read these stories without coming across the others that none of us want to hear. There are the tragic shootings of unarmed people. There was the arrest and excessive force against a Utah nurse who wouldn’t violate policy and the law for a detective, but there are more than I could even get in to listing.

I have been fascinated with the litigation surrounding cops who arrest firefighters over a pissing contest. I have just finished looking at 6 cases in the last 10 years where an officer on some sort of traffic crash arrests a firefighter who is helping a patient for not doing whatever the officer said. In every case, the officer was in the wrong.

My complaint here isn’t even all these issues, however that is certainly a HUGE problem. The thing I am so upset about today is the defense by the brothers in blue in ALL these cases.

Every time I see an officer doing wrong in the news, I go research it myself online. I try to get every fact and every side of the story before I make up my own mind on if the officer is in the wrong. Unfortunately the first thing I see online is the complete opposite among current law enforcement. They blindly defend whatever the officer in question did. When the officer in question has actually done wrong, or worse committed a crime they are themselves tarnishing the reputation of law enforcement.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating. We need to pay ALL law enforcement better. We need to train them better. We need to screen them better. We have too many cops out there who aren’t suited for the job, and they are getting the credit of the good guys who are coming to their defense when they do wrong.

If you have a impulse control, anger management problem, superiority complex or simply an axe to grind you shouldn’t be a police officer. Federal law enforcement screens for these types of things when they do backgrounds on their applicants. They actually talk to friends and family and even enemies of the applicant get a feel for who their applicants are. This isn’t done at hardly any other level of law enforcement. Its expensive. Additionally, its hard to get applicants who don’t have these issues when you pay $20,000 to $40,000 a year to start in a job where you put your life on the line.

When I was a police officer starting out, I paid my own way through academy (few departments in my state paid for it), I purchased my own weapon, duty gear and uniforms, and I started at $10 an hour. This wasn’t that uncommon in Missouri. A red state, who loves their guns, supports the troops and is supposed to be pro law enforcement doesn’t really back the badge financially.

There is so much that needs to be fixed with our criminal justice system, but a good start would be fixing our police departments. Abuse of authority needs to stop, killing when an officer’s life isn’t in danger needs to stop, and blind support of bad cops needs to stop.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/26/red-hen-sarah-sanders-visit-leaves-lexington-virginia-reeling/733196002/

Now, the right is saying that we need to be civil to each other and stop this. Well, I think that is a bit amusing. I am not even going to go into it, but I have a list of photos below for your review.

A woman wearing a Muslim headscarf walks past people holding U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump signs before the annual Muslim Day Parade in the Manhattan borough of New York City, September 25, 2016. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith/File Photo

Protesters hold a banner reading ‘No more mosque’ during a demonstration by the UK branch of the German group ‘Pegida’ in the city centre of Newcastle upon Tyne, Northern England on February 28, 2015.The German-based PEGIDA movement, which opposes what it calls the “Islamisation” of Europe, was staging its first demonstration on British soil on Saturday. AFP PHOTO / OLI SCARFF / AFP / OLI SCARFF

ATTENTION EDITORS – PICTURE CONTAINS OBSCENE GESTURE A supporter gestures at the media as Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump addresses supporters during a campaign rally for Republican Presidential Donald Trump in Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S., October 13, 2016. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston TEMPLATE OUT

Either way, this is not what this post is about. Those two groups are the people, the voters, his constituents.

I want to talk about the politicians, lobbyists and corporations who love him. It’s obvious why they love him. He has done more in a year to deregulate and destroy everything that we have been repairing from the Iraq war fiasco as well as everything is country has worked for going on 250 years now.

People who are in the middle, not ultra liberal and not ultra conservative, like me don’t understand why politicians don’t stand up to him more and even more so, why they are going to extremes to defend him. We all know that politicians are somewhat shady, but even so they usually wont go too far to defend someone they know is doing wrong. Well, here is my take on what is really going on.

Trump was never a politician. He became the most powerful man in the world and the most powerful politician without ever being a politician. There is no further for him to go, he has no political capital to lose. He can do the things that no other politician can. He can do things that corporations and the morbidly wealthy want without the consequences. He can violate the law, he can tell the American people to go to hell, and nothing will happen. We all know there is no way he will ever be indicted. There are too many legal opinions that it can’t be done and the supreme court is on his side. It is extremely likely that even if Mueller gets really good evidence against him, that he wont be impeached and in the event that he is, Pence will pardon any criminal offenses.

I would even bet that if it gets close to impeachment, he will make up some crazy rationale to resign so that he can keep his pension. $217,000 per year isn’t much, but it would be guaranteed income that I bet he wouldn’t give up.

My point is some of the things he has done like Tariffs, getting out of the Paris Climate accord, the Iran deal and meeting with Kim Jong Un are taboo even in the republican party. There are fringe elements and lobbyists who would like them to happen, but most actual politicians would never use the political capital to make them happen. With Trump as president it gives them cover. They can support the president and if things go wrong, they can just back off and say it was all Trump.

If he goes down in flames they all have enough political cover that they will come out unharmed.

Then there is how much he has not only taken our institutions to the right (rather than being neutral) but so many of them he has done lasting damage to. No other Republican could have done all this without serious backlash.

He has made it normal for huge lies to come out of the White House. We no longer even get upset about it. We just expect it. PolitiFact reports that only 17% of the statements he makes are true.

ATTENTION EDITORS – PICTURE CONTAINS OBSCENE GESTURE A supporter gestures at the media as Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump addresses supporters during a campaign rally for Republican Presidential Donald Trump in Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S., October 13, 2016. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston TEMPLATE OUT

He has attacked our news media. The free press was once thought of as the third honorary branch of government, put in place to keep the other three honest. Trump doesn’t want to be honest, and doesn’t want to be called out on it, so what does he do? He declares that the media is the enemy of the people. This would be unheard of in any other administration.

He bragged about sexually assaulting women.

He admitted that if things don’t go well with North Korea (after he said he had made us safe again) that he would simply make up an excuse.

He has had his press secretaries lie to the American People.

He openly makes racist comments.

He calls for locking people up that are political opponents or those who just don’t agree with him.

He refuses to admit that Russia meddled in our election, and constantly tells the American people that he believes Putin when he says he had nothing to do with it. His own campaign is under investigation for possibly colluding in this matter which would be the biggest crime in American history if true.

He has put so many of his family in white house positions. After John F. Kennedy made his brother attorney general, Congress passed an anti-nepotism law in 1967. Based on a questionable legal interpretation, however, the administration claims the statute doesn’t apply to White House staff. Trump is giving his daughter Ivanka a security clearance and a West Wing office without forcing her to give up ownership of her clothing company, while making her husband, Jared Kushner, “lead adviser” on relations with China, Mexico, Canada and the Middle East, all subjects on which he has no background.

He has so many financial conflicts of interest I can’t even list them all. Any other president would be impeached based solely on these items alone. Trump is profiting off the Presidency to the tune of MILLIONS of dollars.

Lets not forget that he said he would hire the best people. 5 of them have been charged with crimes. This administration has had more departures at this time than any other administration in history. The list at this point in time is approaching 100. This list includes both people fired and those who have left because they just can’t in good conscience stay in this administration.

Another personnel matter this white house is struggling with is leaks. This White House has more leaks than we have seen in, well maybe forever. There seem to be those in this administration who disagree with it, but remain because they feel it is their duty to keep an eye on things and report to the public.

He has left so many executive branch jobs vacant. Of 553 key positions, Trump has failed to fill 488 of them — 88%. At the departments of State and Defense, the only confirmed appointees are the Cabinet members.

He is the first president to have such low approval ratings so soon after taking office. According to Gallup, just 38% of those surveyed approve of Trump’s job performance. The lowest previous tally for any president about two months after taking office was 53%; that was Bill Clinton’s mark in 1993. As Trump would say, we live in “unpresidented” times.

Great Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/will-donald-trump-destroy-the-presidency/537921/

The quote republicans like to add to this one is “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49”. They claim that Thomas Jefferson said this. This is a lie. Jefferson never said this, nor would it be in line with any of the beliefs he shared with us.
While I love to point out the hypocrisy of the republicans, and that is exactly what this is when it comes to the filibuster rule, that is not my point with this post. I will point out though that they love the filibuster when it works for them and rail against it when it doesn’t. The point of this is to help some explain our type of government and why Corporate America loves it and hates democracy. What is worse, they not only control the republican party but they convince others to join and to vote against their own interest.

Let’s jump back for a minute. There are a few reasons why the founding fathers chose a republic style as opposed to a pure democracy. Many say it is because they thought the average citizen wasn’t educated enough to vote on issues directly. There is not only good evidence to support this, as we can see from citizens in our own time it is likely very true. The more realistic reason though is logistics. Think of the time it would take in the 1700s if every person voted on every issue. Tallying the numbers and getting them to Washington would be nearly impossible. The logical solution was to have communities elect from the people they know and trust a representative to go to Washington and vote on behalf of them all.

Jumping forward to today…
The reason that corporations and the wealthy like this form of government is it gives them more control. A representative can be bought off to vote the way the wealthy person or corporation wants. If the people vote, each vote matters and there is no way you could pay off that many people. The number of poor people outnumber the number of rich and therefore they would lose influence. This fact has been known for hundreds of years. “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.” – Plutarch (45AD-127AD)

It becomes obvious at this point where our two major parties draw their names from. One party is in favor of every person’s opinion mattering. It favors everyone being taken care of equally and basic rights for all. The other party is in favor of every person for himself, if you fail then you fail, if you succeed or have a golden parachute it is for you to keep all to yourself and the government should protect that for you at all costs. The basic principles in both are okay, but the truth is one is certainly more on the side of honor and civic responsibility.