Best civil rights law books according to redditors

We found 321 Reddit comments discussing the best civil rights law books. We ranked the 59 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Civil Rights Law:

u/mattman59 · 145 pointsr/todayilearned

>if you're going to raid a house with multiple people and rifles, how the fuck could you get the address wrong?

Halfway through this and had to put it down multiple times after reading stories of cops doing stuff like this and then the courts ruling that they acted appropriately. Juries in America by in large are fucking retarded.

u/Terr_ · 110 pointsr/worldnews

Why do you sound so surprised? It's similar in America. Once you stop talking about "the little people" (i.e. at least 99% of us reading this) it happens frequently.

It's just easier to see it going wrong somewhere else, because all the flag-waving and "for the good of the nation" crap is more transparently-absurd when it isn't your own flag and nation.

  • Here in the US, we have politicians who admit (in interviews and memoirs) to behavior which are federal felonies... and also war-crimes (under multiple ratified treaties), yet our political class always just says "It's time to look forward, not back"[2] and sweeps it all under the rug. Virtually every US presidency in the last four decades (including the current one) has vigorously protected the members of the previous one from investigations or prosecutions, anything on the scale from outright pardons to refusal to prosecute to back-room (but still documented) lobbying efforts.

  • Even outside political offices... A wealthy hedge fund manager slams into a bicyclist with his car, and flees the scene, eventually stopping to call for a tow-truck from a Pizza Hut parking lot so that he can get his car secretly repaired. The cyclist, on the other hand, ends up being rushed to the hospital with internal bleeding, spinal injuries that need surgery, and eventually plastic surgery for the scars to his face and body. The manager, meanwhile gets caught by the police, but gets off with a misdemeanor[1] because, in the words of the prosecutor, "felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in [his] profession".

  • Example: Conversely, while that rich guy gets off light (because prosecuting him might interfere with Rich People's Money) there's an unarmed homeless man, who non-violently robbed a bank (with his hand in his pocket to suggest a gun) and who refused to take more than a single $100 bill, giving the rest back to the cashier. He turns himself in the next day and confesses to stealing so he could stay at the detox center, and gets a minimum of 15 years (!) of prison. He'll probably die in there from old age before he gets out, because mandatory minimum sentencing laws prevents the courts from doing much else.

    And that's not even touching what the US does to whistle-blowers who try to expose possible criminality within the government.

    For a more in-depth investigation of recent examples (and who benefitted from pardoning who, who was punished for whistleblowing,etc.) try: With Liberty and Justice for Some.


    [1] For those unfamiliar with US law, most crimes are separated into either misdemeanors (minor crimes of misbehavior, like littering or parking your car where you shouldn't) versus felonies (things which are either "evil" or at least incredibly reckless, like stealing or killing). The distinction between the categories can matter quite a lot in certain situations.

    [2] Another variation is "We're not here to seek revenge, we need to focus on keeping it from happening again... like we said last time... and the time before that... and the time before that...."
u/Phuqued · 58 pointsr/politics

I'd recommend checking this thread.

u/AppropriateAlias · 57 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

[Glenn Greenwald (the main reporter of Snowden docs & person who showed Clapper was lying) actually wrote a book on how, under the US justice system, there are 2 tiers -- one for elites (who don't get punished) and one for everyone else.] (

u/brocket66 · 47 pointsr/news

Radley Balko -- once a reporter at libertarian website Reason, now at the Washington Post -- has owned this beat for over a decade now. Read Rise of the Warrior Cop if you're interested in learning more.

u/kyleg5 · 41 pointsr/dataisbeautiful

While that can be true, Cato does have more intellectual honesty than, for instance, the Heritage foundation. They have a libertarian agenda, but as long as you bear that in mind, there can still be good analysis found.

More importantly, Radley Balko is a phenomenal reporter who has basically been leading the charge on the militarization of police. He also writes for WaPo, and I would say is much less interested in being an ideologue than just aggressively exposing this single issue. I cannot recommend Rise of the Warrior Cop enough.

u/Philipp · 35 pointsr/Documentaries

It's not quite unregulated. It's actually heavily regulated, but the regulations are just stacked against normal citizens.

Take "A corporation is a person". That's a legal concept that is maintained by the government.

Take "I can copyright something". That's a monopoly on ideas which is defended by the government.

Take "You can't photograph my mass farming". Another heavy regulation.

Or take, of course, the bail-outs themselves -- that's a perfect example of government not letting capitalism go its way, but rather, stepping in.

(An interesting book on the subject: The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer. On a related note, by Glenn Greenwald: With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.)

u/Midnight_in_Seattle · 35 pointsr/TrueReddit

This story has two important points: 1. Texas justice is completely fucked up and 2. Police and prosecutors often act in ways that callously disregard the rights of others, yet they are rarely held accountable for their own criminal acts. The numerous videos of innocent people being shot by cops that've surfaced in the last several years demonstrate the problems in police departments.

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces is good further reading on these topics. So is Three Felonies a Day. Almost no one is safe—not even victims.

u/OJ_287 · 34 pointsr/politics

Ultimately that is probably what it will take. Family members or friends of the deceased taking matters into their own hands and taking out murdering cops and corrupt DAs. The bottom line is that stuff like this will never stop if cops do not fear repercussions. It's the same reason why the establishment elite continue doing what they do, they have no fear of being held accountable.

The state of the "rule of law" and American "justice" is a complete joke. "The law" is for the little guy - the powerless. For those who haven't read it, I highly recommend With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful by Glenn Greenwald.

u/whorfinjohn · 29 pointsr/CAguns

He wrote a follow up book on this subject that basically says you can’t just not talk to police. You have to request a lawyer and only talk to police once your lawyer is present. If I remember correctly in the book he explains there have been some rulings that let them consider complete silence as admission of guilt. Been a while since I read it though so I’m sure I’m missing the nuance.

Edited to add the book

u/Buelldozer · 29 pointsr/TrueReddit

Also read Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop."

Edit: Adding link to the book -

u/BathtubJim · 26 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

I would also highly recommend Radley Balko's deep dive into this very issue:
Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces
It's a great read.

u/CallMyNameOrWalkOnBy · 25 pointsr/AmIFreeToGo

More than once on this sub, I've cited the book Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police. It's a bit lengthy, and covers the historical foundation of the Bill of Rights (great read if you're an American history student).

But the real takeaway is that SWAT teams bring their own exigency with them. "Exigency" is just a fancy word for urgent and unexpected circumstances that allow SWAT teams to improvise and shoot dogs and kick in doors and operate without a judge's oversight. But the book makes a compelling argument that SWAT teams create exigency, they create violence where none existed before, they create dangerous situations where none existed before.

What if there are hostages inside a bank during a botched robbery? Sure, send in SWAT. But a house where no one is in any danger? Or a house where no one is threatening anyone? Hey, what if someone is suspected of cock fighting? Just have a celebrity drive a SWAT tank into their house. WCGW?

u/nsarwark · 24 pointsr/IAmA

> Would you have signed the Civil Rights Act?

I would have signed the provisions restricting government mandated discrimination like segregation in public schools, etc. I think that there are more effective ways to deal with private discrimination (see Jonathan Rauch's "Kindly Inquisitors" for a long treatment of the subject) than with government regulation.

Since a law is presented as a package and there was not a line-item veto, I probably would have signed it at the time and in the historical context.

u/homer_j_simpsoy · 23 pointsr/benzodiazepines

Dont tell the cops ANYTHING. It doesn't matter how fat he is, they're all trained the same way. Don't tell them where you're coming from or where you're going to, it is none of their business and they are looking for reasonable suspicion to search you. These people are not your friend, they exist to throw you in jail and they have been trained to manipulate you into making confessions, especially ones that are false. The same cops that are trying to elicite a confession are the same ones who tell their own family not to talk to the police and there is a reason for this.

Instead, exercise your fifth amendment right: "I wish to use my fifth amendment right to remain silent" "I don't answer questions" "I want to speak to a lawyer", "Am I free to go?" "No, I do not consent to a patdown or to being searched". If they do find something it will be a lot easier to have the charges dropped. If you don't have anything, don't put the ball in their court and ramble because they will find something in what you said to use against you. In some states you dont even have to provide your drivers license/identification unless you are pulled over while driving. This book is short and it is well worth reading because it tells you not only why you shouldn't talk to them but it also includes story after story of what happened to people who talked because they felt they "had nothing to hide". If a police officer asks if you have something to hide, say "No, I have nothing to prove to you. Am I free to go?"

If you can not find the book or afford it, this video will work as a valid substitute.

Last thing: It is legal for the police to lie to you but it is not legal for you to lie to them, this is from a supreme court ruling. The best course of action is again, say nothing other than here is my license and registration. He was trained to ask you about drugs and medication and that it what was used against you, you gave him probable cause to conduct a field sobriety test because he elicted a confession from you. He would have not been able to do this if you refused any questions. Now you see why it is not in your best interest to talk to them. Even though you were innocent and had nothing to hide, you still got busted.

u/Blythyvxr · 23 pointsr/Showerthoughts

Well if the police do happen to speak to you, only say “I want a lawyer”

u/MLNYC · 22 pointsr/worldnews

Depends on your definition of a real thing. When a country has laws that incorporate their treaties into their own law, that's pretty real, in terms of the letter of the law.

It's just that we allow our leaders (or they allow themselves) to break the law, in general, when it suits them. (See With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glenn Greenwald [2011]).

u/69bit · 19 pointsr/videos

James Duane's Book on this topic, You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, is also a very good short read.

u/Ketonal_Scale · 17 pointsr/TumblrInAction

I remember reading a book that belonged to my friend, called [Blood in the Face] (, which was a study of various Neo-Nazi and other white supremacist organizations throughout the US. (Say what you will about left-leaning social sciences majors, but god damn can they get some interesting little personal libraries going). Among the many photographs in the book was a detailed map of one white supremacist's new vision of America, with various ethnic groups given their own little swaths of the land. The Jews got NYC and Long Island, Cubans got South Florida, etc. Vermont would become a new nation called "Francia" to hold all the French-Canadians, who, uh, weren't white enough to be with all the other white people I guess.

u/eco_was_taken · 16 pointsr/NoStupidQuestions

Courts are still deciding this (and as other say, jurisdiction is important). There are several cases that have happened where a cop was shot entering a house and the shooter was found not guilty or released after time served.

Cory Maye shot and killed an officer when he entered Cory's half of a duplex (the wrong half). Police were doing a no-knock raid and entered the wrong house. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to the death penalty. His conviction was overturned after attention to the many problems with the case were raised in the media by journalist Radley Balko. Radley Balko is probably the leading journalist covering police raids, medical examiner abuse, and police militarization so if this stuff interests you I recommend following his work.

Adrian Perryman was recently found not guilty after shooting and injuring a cop during a no-knock raid.

Matthew Stewart, a veteran with PTSD, was woken up by having his home raided by police on a tip for an ex-girlfriend that he was growing marijuana. They say they announced themselves, he said he never heard them. They were dressed in hoodies and t-shirts (one was wearing a Cheech and Chong shirt). Several of the police officers had to run back to their vehicles after shots began to get the bullet proof vests they should have been wearing which had POLICE written on them.

Stewart shot 6 officers, killing one of them. After he was apprehended and placed in jail the police began a smear campaign saying that they found photos of him dressed up as a taliban suicide bomber, that they found a bomb in his closet, and that they found child porn on his computer. The taliban outfit was a halloween costume. An ATF agent refuted that the device found was a bomb. Stewart committed suicide in jail by hanging himself. Months later the police called his family to tell them they never actually found any child pornography on his computer.

Edit: Just to clarify a little, knowingly shooting a cop is never lawful. The cases above are because the person shooting did not know who they were shooting at were police. In some of these cases when the police finally announce they are police the person thinks that the police just happened to show up to stop the people who are invading their home. They often don't even realize they had been shooting at the police until after they are arrested.

u/frapperboo · 15 pointsr/politics

Two terrific books on the subject:

u/optionallycrazy · 15 pointsr/news <-- this man was found innoncent after all said and done <-- this one is made famous where a stun grenade injured the wrong child

Those are a couple of examples of it. There are 100s if not 1000s of other articles out there but at the time I cannot possible pull them all up for you.

For some good read, read this book:

It goes into details of exactly what is wrong. Again nobody is arguing that the police should be armed or that they should gain access to equipment, but the problem is how they are using it as oppose to anything else.

u/ATXENG · 14 pointsr/churning

fyi....just passing along something I've read:

You should NEVER talk to the police, especially federal agents.

You should not claim your right to remain silent, but instead exercise your right to a lawyer.

Demand gov't to provide written questions and only answer gov't in written statements

u/sstelmaschuk · 14 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

Compassion is one part of it for sure. There's a wonderful book, Rise of the Warrior Cop, that details a lot about the mentality of police in the US over the last couple of decades.

And I think that's an issue that we do need to address, in addition to compassion, is that more and more cops are being trained to act like military staff. Which gives rise to 'us vs them' mentality that tends to lead to situations like the one that occurred in Toronto.

u/Zetaghostmale · 14 pointsr/MGTOW

Feminism does not care about women but about their privileges. And the most important of all is to maintain control of sexuality. That is why they oppose sexual dolls and any alternative to a relationship where the woman marks the sexual pattern.

The feminist lie (book):

When a feminist tells you that you are reifying the female body for having a sex doll, tell her to throw her dildo in the trash.

u/seospider · 13 pointsr/HistoryWhatIf

Glenn Greenwald, who reported the Edward Snowden revelations, argues that this decision set the precedent for the powerful in the U.S. publicly and unapologetically declaring that the law applies differently to them then it does to the masses.

u/SernyRanders · 13 pointsr/SandersForPresident

A book recommendation on a sad day for democracy:
>With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

>- Glenn Greenwald

u/gronke · 13 pointsr/videos

Feel free to find a recent video of a German police stop that went anything like that.

Meanwhile, I can find about three hundred US stops that went like that.

It's not the gun ownership or the armed populace. It's the Rise of the Warrior Cop.

u/Kpwn88 · 13 pointsr/TheRedPill

The Feminist Lie by Bob Lewis is pretty good. It exposes it for the fraud it is in pretty good detail, as well as laying out the method and tactics feminists use to silence opposition and how to counter them. Well worth the read.

u/robotfuel · 12 pointsr/worldnews

>giving Glenn Greenwald a megaphone to spout his baseless venom however, is wildly unprofessional.

What specifically do you mean by 'baseless venom'?

I've watched his lectures at colleges, his debates on TV amongst the different news stations across the globe and read With Liberty and Justice for Some and not once have I ever thought his arguments were 'baseless' because he provides facts and empirical evidence that can be looked up and verified.

More recently the message he usually conveys is that he wants to shed light on what powerful people are doing in the dark. i.e. The NSA constructing a world wide, indiscriminate spy network that can be used against anyone at the whim of those who control it. Something that was considered wild conspiracy theory only 4 months ago.

How is this a bad thing? To want to inform the public of what powerful people are doing in the dark? To promote the ideal that investigative journalism is one of the main checks to power that we have?

Additionally his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" gives quite a few examples about how there is a very real two tiered justice system dominant in the US. On one side you have the very rich who do not suffer for their crimes against humanity (Cheney/Bush & their false Iraq War, HSBC Laundering Billions for Drug Cartles, etc) and the full weight of the law coming down on petty drug offenses.

I can, however, understand how one would consider the words coming from Greenwald's mouth 'venemous'. His penchant for the truth and his debate skill usually cuts to the bone. Not once have I ever seen him lose a debate. Not once. And while that in and of itself is no indicator of the truthfulness of one's words ( this scene from Thank You For Smoking comes to mind ) it does merit a degree of respect. Especially when you do look up the things he has to say and find out they are rooted in truth.

Compare that with say, someone like Rush Limbaugh or Bill'O'Reily, who seem like divisive demagouges that appear to truly spout baseless venom. Many times when you look up what they have to say it's often half-truth or an outright lie. Twisted words for twisted people with twisted agendas.

Rush and Bill seem to feed off of and appeal to the very worst in humanity - fear, xenophobia, selfishness, greed - I don't see Glenn Greenwald doing the same kinds of things.

u/AlarmedAntique · 12 pointsr/JusticeServed

>The whole "ask for a lawyer" business is kind of overstated. The only thing a lawyer will advise you is to not say another word to the police. That's the entirety of the benefit of calling a lawyer. (Also, in circumstances where it's not clear that you've been detained/arrested, the lawyer will instruct you to ask the police if you can leave, and if offered the chance, to do so).
>Edit: you should still call a lawyer, because you're always better off with advice tailored to your situation than without it. I'm just pointing out it won't stop the police from asking the questions.

James Duane of the famous Don't Talk to the Police video recommends in his book You Have the Right to Remain Innocent that you should explicitly ask for a lawyer instead of pleading the fifth. He cites a supreme court decision that makes it so the fifth amendment no longer has the protections it used to have. Explicitly stating you want a lawyer and then remaining silent is your best option.

u/northshore12 · 12 pointsr/FloridaMan

>He acts like he’s invading Fallujah every time he does a traffic stop. He has a notorious reputation.

This behavior seems to be increasing dramatically over the past few decades, and the trend shows no sign of slowing down.

u/PingPoopa · 12 pointsr/politics

The book I'm reading right now:

There's been a huge proliferation of military equipment, which is used in no-knock SWAT raids against suspected drug dealers, or sometimes even doctors suspected of over-prescribing painkillers, sometimes based on bad tips or sometimes simply at the wrong address.

Sadly, until very recently Obama hadn't really done anything to stifle this, and it's arguable that he actually advanced it. Joe Biden has been doing so for longer than he's been vice president.

u/sounddude · 11 pointsr/Libertarian

If any of you haven't read this book I HIGHLY recommend it. Especially if you like to get your blood pressure up to unsafe levels.

Rise of The Warrior Cop

u/ModusPwnins · 11 pointsr/HuntsvilleAlabama

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko may be interesting reading for you.

u/SmuckersMarionBerry · 11 pointsr/news

>[Citation needed.] That sounds like a huge generalization, across a country with hundreds, if not thousands of diverse departments.

>Honor for whom? De Blasio, with his anti-police rhetoric and white guilt appeasement, has thrown police under the bus and blames them for actions outside of polices' control.

Honor for the the democratically elected civilian official who oversees them. I don't give a fuck what you think of Obama, but a soldier should not turn his back on the President of the United States. We're a republic, not a junta.

u/Legitninjaguy · 11 pointsr/Conservative

I will check it out, thanks for the recommendation.

I read Civil Rights Rhetoric or Reality and it was remarkably good and very thought provoking

u/OrtizDupri · 11 pointsr/rva

Also /u/thisisATHENS, I'd recommend taking a look at Rise of the Warrior Cop - - written by a libertarian dude, so it's not some left-wing look at the police, but it is a fairly comprehensive look at the history of policing in America as well as the rise in militarization and tactics (as well as why those don't work). I certainly don't take it as gospel but it is well researched, well written, and hopefully something that both right and left folks can agree is an issue that should be addressed.

u/AFLoneWolf · 11 pointsr/justlegbeardthings

It's even available on Amazon. From their own description:

> A wave of sexual misconduct allegations about powerful men have exploded recently in the media (e.g., the news, Twitter #MeToo, etc.). A bold social movement has begun with brave women coming forward and being applauded for speaking out and sharing their stories of abuse, discrimination, and harassment. As a result, accused men like Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, and dozens more have been removed from power and are suffering the consequences.

> In How to Destroy A Man Now (DAMN), Dr. Angela Confidential (a business psychologist, consultant, and human resource professional) empowers women with a step-by-step guide for destroying a man’s reputation and removing him from power.

> In easy to understand terms, the handbook reveals and explains the fundamental dynamics between allegations, the media, and authority as they relate to male misconduct in today’s society. It also unveils and details practical real-world methods for leveraging allegations, media, and authorities to dethrone a man from power.

I'm torn. I really want to maintain the integrity of book reviews left by people who have actually read the book. But on the other hand, should anyone read shit like this?

Conversely: The Manipulated Man and The Feminist Lie: It Was Never About Equality. The first seems like it's worth a read. The second looks almost as toxic as DAMN.

u/ClarkNeily · 10 pointsr/IAmA

Great, great, GREAT question BorgesFan. Thank you!

First, I don’t find marijuana legalization esoteric at all. We lock up a disgraceful number of people for the utterly harmless “crime” of marijuana possession and sale, and as a result of our political leaders’ foolish commitment to prosecuting the unwinnable drug war, America has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. Disgraceful! Also, local police are turning into quasi-military outfits, and it’s getting really scary. Please read my friend Radley Balko’s book, [The Rise of the Warrior Cop] ( to learn more.

How do we make the argument for liberty more accessible? By telling the personal stories of those who have suffered at the hands of overweening government: [Susette Kelo and her neighbors in New London, CT] (, where eminent domain was used to take their homes and businesses by force. [Sandy Meadows, who couldn’t support herself because Louisiana said she had to have a license to arrange flowers] (

The most important tip I can offer is to have empathy for your listener. This means a few things:

-Don’t treat someone like they’re a bad person or an idiot just because they disagree with you about a particular policy. They probably want many of the same results you do—a free, prosperous, and just society—and just disagree about how to get there.
-Prioritize your outrage. Some government abuses are truly appalling (e.g., the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII) while others are petty indignities (e.g., being forced to subsidize public television shows you disagree with through your tax dollars). If you equate the latter with the former, people won’t take your message seriously.
-Figure out what your listeners care about and then make your argument in their terms. For example, a social liberal might not be moved by arguments about the “nanny state,” but they may be moved by evidence that a particular policy harms the very people it is intended to help.
-Simplify, simplify, simplify. If you can’t explain your position to someone who isn’t a policy wonk, it’s not going to persuade people.
-Put a human face on the issues. It’s one thing to say that a policy is unjust; it’s another thing to show how it harms real people.

These principles are common sense, but you would be surprised at how many people ignore them.

Finally, I spent the last 15 months or so trying to distill all of this into an intelligent, accessible, and emotionally compelling package. The result is my new book, [Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government] ( Hope some of you will check it out and tell me what you think!

u/dansdata · 10 pointsr/news

OK, look, I must come clean with you:

While I was writing the comment to which you replied, I was sort of psychomagnetically attracted to writing American-style, leaving only that one giveaway "calibre" to hint that I actually am... Australian.

I'm obviously not going to start the Internet's ten-zillionth pointless gun-control argument here, we'd both be better off jamming our thumbs in our eyes... but, for further full-disclosure, I have previously said, while appearing sincere, "Look, you've got to respect their culture. Americans just love shooting each other!" :-)


Down here, normal Australian cops all have pistols.

But if one of our cops shoots someone, and the shot-person dies, then that will be front-page news nationwide. (Probably even if everyone's still alive.)

Meanwhile in the USA, most, but not all, police departments will disclose how many people their officers have shot in the last year.

I can totally see how better firearms are just better tools for police. I mean, the basic Glock-pistol concept is that it's an automatic that handles like a revolver but is even safer and has more ammo, right? OK, no problem. Or, at least, no new problem. Replacing a cop's truncheon with an expandable baton similarly just gives that cop a handier thing to whack people with, not (generally...) a higher inclination to whack them.

But... a semi-auto 5.56?! Just generally sitting around, for whoever's assigned to this car tonight? In case that weapon seems... necessary?

Are we certain that the threat we're giving these guys a "black gun" to fight is more probable that the chance that a flesh-covered robot from the future will will recover one of the AR-15s and use it to extinguish the progenitors of the human race?

Sorry. No actual argument intended.

This just looks like a big quivering pile of mall-ninjas to me. Yes, police have to deal with incredible bullshit (even super-corrupt police probably have to!), and if I were a cop I'd probably fantasise about just mowing all of those fuckin' morons down with a crew-served weapon which besides me is served by Playboy Bunnies. But I'd still have three-fifths of bugger-all chance of ever being better off, actually, because I carried a pistol and AR-whatever, versus carrying a pistol and a juice box.

I think Radley Balko has his shit together regarding this, but I'm not certain.

u/jedichric · 10 pointsr/progun

Read this. I just finished it and it is eye-opening.

The gist of it is that there are federal grants handed to localities to purchase these types of things. Why not take the government's money and buy a cool as hell toy like this?

u/buu2 · 8 pointsr/Drexel

Here's how I understand it, also a senior econ major who spends too much time on /truereddit and no time watching tv news.

The bottom 99%: Many of the protestors are recent college graduates who have spent the last few years trying and failing to get jobs in their majors. There are many people who have graduated with decent grades and decent resumes, taken out tens of thousands of dollars of student loans and now have to take retail jobs because there just aren't enough jobs in the market. Read around at to get a better idea of people's individual situations. Large factions in government (particularly the growing far-right voice in republicanism) have been cutting unemployment insurance, anything meaningful in the healthcare bill, and money toward non-profits.

The Top 1%: Meanwhile, the top 1% are taking ever more for themselves. These graphs show the growing disparity better than I could. Meanwhile, they've heavily lobbied congress, changed regulations to give more freedom to large corporations and make entering markets more difficult, have avoided any criminal prosecutions despite numerous acknowledged accounts of theft, lying to consumers about risk, and lying to regulatory bodies about what they were doing. C-level executives breaking the law, affecting millions of dollars and lives, face no criminal penalties but 4% of Americans have been imprisoned, mostly for petty crimes and drug use. And now that corporations have personhood, as upheld by the supreme court case Citizens United Vs. FEC, corporations are donating massive amounts to influence elections and elected representatives. This has caused both parties to give more weight to corporate interests than ever before in American history while simultaneously cutting benefits and safety nets for the bottom 46%.

Issues with Obama: Obama ran on a campaign for change of corporate interest in politics and stronger enforcement of equality under the law. But under him, the banks had record profits after a misguided bailout, regulation continued to be uprooted, no criminal charges were filed, and almost all the major relief programs had their budgets cut. People felt betrayed.

The OWS campers: So back to OWS - the people camping out are the front lines. Many are unemployed, some are homeless, some are just really grumpy. They are not the voice of the movement, but the base of it. The media has mostly gotten their kicks by playing this "neutral" reporting angle, where they interview the front liners and decide that everyone is just complaining and uneducated. The people at the front lines do a have a wide range of complaints - they believe the political system is broken. Issues include corporate personhood, lobbyist influence, block party voting, lack of interest in citizen issues (online voting questions), the never ending wars, legalization of marijuana, student loans, healthcare, gun control laws, and everything in between. At the front lines, people are just disgruntled. But as a whole movement, the first few are representative of the main requests for change.

What OWS wants: To date, the movement hasn't asked for anything direct or specific action. That enables the mainstream media to simplify the movement. But no law by entrenched politicians can change a culture of listening to CEO interests over worker interests, of accepting huge donations in return for lowered regulations. Right now, OWS is trying to raise awareness of this disparity of wealth and interests - it's difficult for anyone not directly impacted to really feel.

Tl;dr Most Americans have seen their benefits and job opportunities cut while the government has allocated more and more to the top 1%. The people camping out and protesting are the base of the movement, but they aren't a very eloquent voice for it. The biggest issues that OWS is seeking to change are overturning corporate personhood and equality under the law between rich and poor.

Further viewing:
Book: Glenn Greenwald’s With Liberty and Justice for Some - How Rule of Law no longer applies – the political and financial elite aren’t criminally liable for their actions, and poor drug users are more likely to face crippling criminal penalties than ever before.
Video: Inside the Accountants Handbook – a 3 minute video of how corporations don’t pay taxes

u/coolcrosby · 8 pointsr/Bad_Cop_No_Donut

See, Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko at:

For confirmation of your position

u/waffle_ss · 8 pointsr/MilitaryPorn

And why is that, you don't think it's a thing? You think people can just write bestselling books about the phenomenon using a lot of hot air? I admit some parts of the book are so over the top I have a hard time believing them myself:

> In all, thirteen California counties were invaded by choppers, some of them blaring Wagner’s "Ride of the Valkyries" as they dropped Guardsmen and law enforcement officers armed with automatic weapons, sandviks, and machetes into the fields of California.

But then I read articles like this one published today all about the overuse of flashbangs by police. One of the vignettes was about a lady who got no-knock raided for selling "a plate of food and six cans of beer without a license." Sounds like a good use of deadly force, a SWAT team and taxpayer dollars to me. /s And of course the article repeated that sickening story about the baby who was badly maimed - almost died - from a flashbang going off in its crib during a raid where the perp wasn't even there. Little guy had to be put in a medically-induced coma for over a month, has already racked up over $1M in medical bills, and will have to have reconstructive surgery every 2 years until he turns 20.

Of course those are just a couple anecdotes. Look into the stats for yourself on the rise and overuse of SWAT units and no-knock raids and see that its a systemic problem. Fact is there is a sizable segment of modern police who like to dress up and play soldier, and the federal gov't subsidizing surplus weapons of war does not help the situation.

u/Get_Erkt · 8 pointsr/ShitAmericansSay

I always link liberals and social democrats to this book, but they never read it. It's unfortunate but significant they reject out of hand without independent investigation anything that contradicts their ideas. Gun prohibition would go over as well as drug prohibition--an excuse for the racist, classist police to terrorize the poor, especially poor people of color, in the interests of "public safety."

They want the feeling of intellectual and moral superiority over the Right and Left, without doing the good faith and thorough going study and on-the-ground organizing required for any kind of confidence, because no one can be superior to anyone else. They just want to watch the Daily Show and nod sagely, but as ahistorical and ideologically rigid as reactionaries.

Unfortunately, and i say this without malice or to feel superior, liberals and social democrats follow a kind of politics that cares more about aesthetics and performance than historical materialism.

u/thedivegrass · 8 pointsr/SeattleWA

Maybe you could use a deeper academic understanding of how censoring discussion bolsters hate.

In the context of these complaints "obvious trolling" seems to mean "people on the other end of politics," or "people who say things that offend me." It's basically impossible to moderate this without bias and without censoring users.

At best, we could say banning "obvious trolls" would get rid of collapsed or heavily downvoted comments, as its so obvious. Controversial comments are getting as many upvotes, and so nothing there would change. It's a discussion board: your tools are discourse and voting. You don't want moderators to think for you.

u/snarkinator · 7 pointsr/TumblrInAction

If you adopt the definition of fundamentalist in Kindly Inquisitors (highly recommended), these are people incapable of admitting they might be wrong.

u/xLittleP · 7 pointsr/politics

Those of you concerned about the Sheriff's stance on this legal mattermay be interested in Glenn Greenwald's new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some.

u/sotheysaidthen · 7 pointsr/worldnews

It's more like the girlfriend who kept cheating on you over the years with different people is now being caught doing an orgy on webcam.

History repeats itself if we don't prosecute criminals.

u/SatAnCapv3 · 7 pointsr/Shitstatistssay

They'll never allow books like that in there.

u/goonsack · 7 pointsr/Cyberpunk

This photo is on the cover of Radley Balko's new book.

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces

u/maxtothose · 7 pointsr/slatestarcodex

> Do you have a counterpoint example of "thoughtful social justice advocacy" to help me understand the movement better?

No, I really don't. I don't think I understand the movement myself. That's why I find it plausible that there may be stronger arguments for it that we're all missing.

I may take Nathan up on his offer and read one of those books. Eventually. I've been reading too much nonfiction lately, I'm due for a break. :)

But for a very grey-tribe friendly book that does touch on some social justice issues, check out I liked that book a lot when I read it. However, it's not really a leftist perspective (like, at all.)

u/armrha · 6 pointsr/justneckbeardthings

Fair enough. There is an interesting string of legal arguments to look over if you are curious. A good book on it is 'The Harm in Hate Speech' by Jeremy Waldron, covers many cases and international laws.

u/PrestonPicus2016 · 6 pointsr/SandersForPresident

We have to make the government's actions public and keep our private lives private. It's terrifying to see what Glenn Greenwald uncovered:

Patriot Act goes too far, FISA courts have no real oversight capacity, the whole thing is a mess.

We have to start by applying the law. If you do something illegal, as the NSA did, as many of these agencies did, there have to be consequences. This is the problem with so much of our system: no consequences. Illegally spy on Americans? No consequence. Illegally kidnap and torture innocent people because you thought they were terrorists? No consequences.

Heck, even Dick Cheney, who was wrong about almost every single thing he did as VP, still gets to go on TV and sell himself as some kind of expert. It's amazing.

When these organizations break the law, someone besides the whistleblower has to go to jail.

u/hererinchina · 6 pointsr/worldnews

Companies made up of criminals, in this case. Who else do you think actually commits the crimes?

Of course, the Obama administration also directly grants immunity to single criminals:

"In court papers filed today ... the United States Department of Justice requested that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz be granted procedural immunity in a case alleging that they planned and waged the Iraq War in violation of international law."

These aren't singular "looking forward in a spirit of forgiveness" cases, as politicians like to present them. These are actions which help future crimes, as everyone gets the message that with a high enough standing, no court can hurt you. This follows a pattern going back to not just the pardoned Nixon. Glenn Greenwald, who works with whistleblower Snowden, wrote an excellent book on the subject.

u/AldoTheeApache · 6 pointsr/AskHistorians

Did a thesis on the rise of racist skinhead culture in the US and it’s origin and evolution (into a racist movement) in the UK, back in college (in the early 90s). While most of the research came from magazines, newspapers and videos, some books that were helpful included (off the top of my head):

Blood In The Face

Skinhead by Nick Knight

Subculture and CutNMix by Dick Hebdige

Also there was an incredible article on Bob Heick leader of the American Front and arguably I’d say one of the first guys to popularize the Nazi skinhead movement here in the US, published in Rolling Stone back in the late 80s. If you can find it I’d recommend tracking it down.

Also you may want to check out Subcultures, Pop Music and Politics: Skinheads and "Nazi Rock" in England and Germany

Good luck with your research

u/insecuritytheater · 6 pointsr/news

Radley Balko's book Rise of the Warrior Cop briefly touches on how rarely judges turn down search warrants. Rather depressing. Don't have a citation for which pages, sorry.

u/[deleted] · 6 pointsr/rage

To anyone curious as to where this kind of gung-ho mentality of police comes from, I recommend picking up this book.

u/SerPuissance · 6 pointsr/news

[I'm not sure about that mate.] ( American PD's look more to me like standing armies every day.

u/rdancer · 5 pointsr/HillaryForPrison

The two parties are the product of the voting system. The corruption is a separate issue, having to do with elite immunity.

u/ugottabe · 5 pointsr/politics

> authorized a variety of actions that had no pretense of law

Retroactive immunity? Check.
Pardoning of lawbreakers? Check.
Widening of laws to make legal what wasn't? Check.
Criminializing those who talk about this? Check.

Now guess which country I'm talking about...

u/CaptInappropriate · 5 pointsr/videos

Did you watch the video? I watch it about twice a year, and i have his follow-up book on my phone’s kindle app.

The book’s big takeaway is you should assert your 6TH amendment rights, vice pleading the fifth, because the 6th gets you your lawyer before the cops can ask you questions, and your lawyer tells you to shutup. Too many people have it in their mind that asserting your fifth amendment rights against self incrimination is something that only a guilty person would do, and saying the sixth doesnt have that widespread perception (yet).

If you didnt watch the video. Watch it.

Imagine you had an ex who lived in the next neighborhood over, and they died. The cops talk to you because the ex is always the one who did it, but you didnt, so you answer their questions to clear your name. When they ask if you were in that neighborhood, you say “i’ve not been their for YEARS!” but the cops already have a witness who says they saw someone who looks like you with a car like yours creepin around that neighborhood on the day of the murder. You get hauled in front of a jury, and a cop and a witness say you were there, and you look like a dirty liar and risk going to jail, whereas if you HADNT said anything, the cops would have a random witness and nothing about you being a dirty liar.

Worth watching the full thing.

u/FracturedAss · 5 pointsr/australia
u/PhoenixRite · 4 pointsr/law

You might be interested in this book, What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said, where a "court" of nine legal scholars write opinions that they felt better expressed the rationale the court should have adopted rather than what it did say.

u/thaway314156 · 4 pointsr/politics

"Sorry, I had affluenza!"

Glenn Greenwald wrote a book about the whole equal laws bullshit before he was the NSA Leaks guy:

u/TimeTravlnDEMON · 4 pointsr/CFB

The guy in that video wrote a book about not talking to police as well. It's not very long and it's pretty good.

u/shitlaw · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

one of the most emotionally eviscerating tragedies of American constitutional jurisprudence is the Court's abandonment of the Ninth Amendment. everyone should read The Forgotten Ninth Amendment.

u/shelbygt5252 · 4 pointsr/Kanye

The militarization of the police force in the United States has been an ongoing issue for years, not really sure how you can pin that on Trump. If you are curious, Radley Balko released a book about this in 2014 (Amazon).

u/Boshasaurus_Rex · 4 pointsr/news

I love me some Radley Balko. I highly recommend his book.

u/LittleHelperRobot · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

Non-mobile: Rise of the Warrior Cop

^That's ^why ^I'm ^here, ^I ^don't ^judge ^you. ^PM ^/u/xl0 ^if ^I'm ^causing ^any ^trouble. ^WUT?

u/Duke_Newcombe · 4 pointsr/Blackfellas

After reading the reviews like this one, and excerpts from the book, if you wanted to have a more informative historical reflection on black and firearms in this nation, and less of a polemic, knee-bending, white-centered view of social conflict and the gun, avoid this book.

Negroes with Guns does it much better, with about 75% less political tilt and lecturing to black folks.

u/bonked_or_maybe_not · 4 pointsr/Libertarian
u/Lubdan · 4 pointsr/MGTOW

For anybody who doesn't know who this is, but kind of remembers the voice, it's DDJ from Turd flinging monkey's channel. He's been doing mgtow content for a long time, just not on his own channel until recently. He wrote a book and you can pick it up here

btw the author name is obviously a pen-name for anyone wondering.

u/fidelitypdx · 3 pointsr/NeutralPolitics

> You can't say Trump doing it is okay because Bush did.

Don't put words in mouth that aren't there: it isn't good for an elected official to have conflicts of interest. I think both candidates in 2016 offered differing conflicts of interest, but that's a different story.

> I think maybe a better question is when did this sort of behavior become acceptable?

Glenn Greenwald argues in his book "With Liberty and Justice for Some" that American Democracy and government fundamentally changed when Richard Nixon was pardoned. I think that's part of the answer - since that event we've really viewed the elected officials as a ruling class; thus exempt from moral and ethical conditions we apply to ourselves.

But there's also an ideological root to all the acceptance of this; core to the belief of Ayn Rand and some libertarians is that business leaders should make the best public leaders. So, if you've been successful in private business you ought to have influence in public policy as well.

With the rise of H.W. Bush (Sr.) as Vice President of Ronald Reagan, this ideology had become fully embraced by the Republicans. H.W. Bush was known as an oil tycoon, and it was expected that he could level out the oil prices through his inside knowledge.


But then we also need to backup and realize that this isn't a problem exclusive to the White House; the "revolving door" of public appointments and private business has been documented for about 100 years. This isn't a new thing, and in some ways it makes sense to have people familiar with the industry making decisions about an industry. That's a whole other topic though. Anyways, we shouldn't pretend that Trump is an unprecedented nefarious evil about to doom America because he has some business interests. The reality is that a fuckton of politicians at all levels have business interests - many would argue that's not a bad thing.

u/aletoledo · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

You have a right to remain innocent. This is a very quick and easy read. I generally hate lawyers and this guy puts disclaimers into the beginning that praise government, but i can't help but think he understands anarchy.

u/EntheoGiant · 3 pointsr/Drugs


Watch Law Professor James Duane's lecture on Never Talking to The Police.

Then, go buy his book.

Yes, that's a LAW PROFESSOR telling LAW STUDENTS why you shouldn't speak to the police.

The live demonstrations alone are worth the lecture.

u/sebso · 3 pointsr/technology

This is probably the most important video in the world, and more people need to see it. James Duane, the guy giving the talk, also wrote a book on the subject, which I can highly recommend:

u/jfoust2 · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Prof. James Duane wrote a book now, too - "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent".

Excellent read. Updated and expanded compared to the video.

The biggest problem is that as you read it, you hear him talking in that rapid-fire voice.

u/personal_liberty · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

Sovereign citizens and the right to travel.

I researched it a bunch, and wrote a book. Stuffs legit.

u/trudann · 3 pointsr/AdviceAnimals

Response to active shooters has generally changed to immediate neutralization after Columbine: there are usually no negotiations and police go in ASAP to apprehend the target. In many areas I think the crazed gunman would have to initiate the negotiations. Often times the first response is not SWAT (they take longer to mobilize), but whoever arrives first that has a weapon.

As far as SWAT teams go, for the most part I think there are far too many in America. Even smaller communities have a SWAT team, though the chance of their need is very low. I mean.. how many incidences can a town with a population of 10,000 really have that would require a SWAT team?

As a result the teams are often under trained and to justify the expense of having one staffed and equipped the rate of no-knock raids increases. IMO no-knocks are most certainly dangerous, unnecessary and serve only to habituate violence. But unfortunately a man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail.

All that said in this particular situation I would say that Brown was looking for trouble that day and found it, but that not enough evidence has been released yet to determine if the actions of the officer were justified. I'm not sure there will be enough evidence to really ever know. I certainly wouldn't trust the testimony that his friend/accomplice in strong arm robbery would give. More video or other eyewitness accounts would be needed.

Ultimately I think communities across America need to reconsider the militarization of their police. What's far more worrisome than any of the police response to protesters and rioters so far are no-knock raids on the wrong houses. And how regular warrants are starting to be served in ways that look more and more like no-knock warrants.

A decent read on the subject of police militarization and the use of SWAT teams:

u/Firsmith · 3 pointsr/TrueReddit

This book is a great read on the subject. rise of the warrior cop

u/GrayghOst123 · 3 pointsr/news

There is a book I am currently reading that is pertinent to the subject of police policy overreach. It is called Rise of the Warrior Cop I would recommend it to anyone wondering how SWAT started as a purely anti-terrorist force to becoming used for just about everything today.

u/WaterIce215 · 3 pointsr/news

Great book on the subject of militarized police called Rise of the Warrior Cop by Ridley Balko, who did an AMA on the subject.

u/sticky-bit · 3 pointsr/amateurradio

The vast majority of police communications really need to be broadcast in the clear, live:

>"There is a tanker trailer full of flammable liquid, on fire and overturned just south of exit 9 southbound, I-95"

There are a small amount of communications that still need to be broadcast, but for officer safety need a few minutes of delay:

>"We're going to try to get to the sniper atop The Tower at the University of Texas by going through an underground tunnel"

^(Please note that the information that there is an active shooter on the top of the tower needs to be broadcast far and wide to help prevent loss of life. The tactical stuff only should go on delay. If all the comms are scrambled, they're keeping vital information from the public.)

There's a only a very few bits of information that never should be broadcast in the clear, but still need to be available by discovery under the supervision of a judge, should a lawsuit occur.

>"The rape victim's name is "

Unfortunately, the way we're moving in this country ("Burn that fucking house down!", secret interrogation rooms for the Chicago police department, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces) is entirely the wrong direction.

u/aethelberga · 3 pointsr/conspiracy
u/genesissequence · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

According to Radley Balko most of the surplus comes from the war on drugs.

u/Zeighesh · 3 pointsr/motorcycles

If we're handing out book recommendations, Radley Balko's reporting and books The Rise of the Warrior Cop and Overkill would probably broaden your perspective.

u/IQBoosterShot · 3 pointsr/politics

I highly recommend reading "Rise Of The Warrior Cop: The Militarization Of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko. I'm in the middle of it and already I feel like I'm understanding a process which had its genesis in the sixties.

u/liamemsa · 3 pointsr/news

> How the fuck is it okay for police to go in there with assault rifles and treating them like that? Even if it were weed, that shouldn't be acceptable...

After 2001, the military got a shitload of hardware. Now that the "war on terror" is dialing down, they need to get rid of this hardware. Through a government program, local police departments are able to procure military hardware at discount.

This means that small towns, who would normally have nothing but blue uniformed patrolmen walking the streets, are suddenly able to get MRAPs, military style uniforms, armor, and weapons.

And, as the old adage goes, When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

If they have an armored personnel carrier sitting in their bay, they're going to want an excuse to use it. What's a better reason than "Fighting the War on Drugs," am I right? So, all the cop guys who play Modern Warfare in their off-hours suddenly get to armor up, grab an automatic rifle, and do it for real. How fun is that, right?

It's becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between police and military.

For more reading, check out this book.

u/Orlando1701 · 3 pointsr/Libertarian

There is a study out there somewhere, I’ll try and find it and link it, which shows the cops are generally reluctant to actually use SWAT against armed or aggressive persons but prefer to wait them out. Rather SWAT is disproportionately used when it is an established fact that the target is likely to offer minimal resistance.

*Edit - I couldn’t find the original source I used in my paper years ago but it is referenced in this book which admittedly isn’t the most balanced source.

u/badmagis · 3 pointsr/madisonwi

You guys got a nice back-and-forth going here, but I'd just like to interject with a book recommendation on the history of police: Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces by Radley Balko (

It's a well researched and footnoted book - the author explains that police as we know them are a surprisingly recent development. Mostly affirming the info in the links shared by u/Gilgong0. What I found interesting is 1) we as people only started having police when people started living close to strangers in larger cities (because before that your family and church members just shamed you and/or physically dealt with you if needed) and 2) there is not technically a constitutional basis for police (but no one is making a serious argument they shouldn't exist)

u/Javik2186 · 3 pointsr/conspiracy

Ever read the book, "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko?

It is a good book to read. I recommened it.
Rise of the Warrior Cop

u/caferrell · 3 pointsr/DescentIntoTyranny

Besides this book, I would highly suggest that everyone read "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" by Radly Balko. Read Balkow's book to see how American police have evolved into the occupying army that they are now thanks to bad legislation and too much power

u/sonyka · 3 pointsr/ShitRedditSays

> The police force in this town has tripled in the last dozen years. They have also transformed from the approachable servants they are supposed to be into highly militarized and aggressive shitbags.

Somehow this bothers me the most.

Like, honey, the police force in every town in America has tripled in the last dozen years.
They have all become highly militarized and [even more] aggressive.
This has been going on for

Where the fuck were you?

u/HerpDerpingVII · 3 pointsr/TrueOffMyChest

I don't hate SJWs. I think they are stupid, and use their philosophy and their support group to justify doing some really nasty shit, convinced that they are right. But I don't hate them. I judge individuals by their words and actions. If I meet a SJW that can't even defend (or often define) the positions they take, then I think they are an ignorant idiot. When I meet someone who tries to justify judging all people of a group together, and then claim that it isn't racism (or my favorite; racism is good) then I will judge that individual to be an ignorant bigot.

All social "privilege" is contextual. All of it. Be a white guy in Sudan, and see how much advantage it gets you.

Even more relevant, SJWs do not want to discuss the privileges that matter most. Which are money and a good family. In any situation, being raised by an educated family and having a trust fund is worth more privilege points than the colour of your skin.

As for the historical treatment of women? I think that you are getting the wrong end of the stick there. Women were never property in a way that men were not. Not in any English speaking nation. Not in Europe, at large.

You had serfs, but they were not chattel, and men were serfs too. There were chattel slaves but, again, as many men were enslaved as women.

If you actually want to learn something of the history you could watch this video.

If you want a short book to read with exhaustive citations you could read this book.

Or, you know, you could continue to excuse people who hate men for being born men. Whatever makes you happy.

u/TopBloke99 · 3 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Get yourself a copy of the book The Feminist Lie, which is written specifically to counter feminist talking points with an exhaustive number of citations.

u/spartan2600 · 2 pointsr/politics

The US's cruel prison system didn't start under Bush, it goes back centuries.

And in fact, Princeton professor of history Naomi Murakawa documented "How Liberals Built Prison in America."

>In their quest to wipe out extra-legal racial violence, white liberals created a system that continues to kill black people—legally.

u/_Sheva_ · 2 pointsr/politics

He already wrote that book.

'With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used To Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful'

I am sure Dick Cheney is mentioned once or twice. He was already well aware of the Dick's crimes when he wrote it.

u/sjmdiablo · 2 pointsr/politics

I read Glen Greenwald's With Liberty and Justice for Some and Matt Taibii's The Divide back-to-back this year. The raison d'être of the law has changed from ideas and needs springing from the philosophy of justice into a weapon to maintain the status quo, something cruel and indifferent.

u/bign00b · 2 pointsr/canada

This is a good video I watched a while back:

It's obviously for American law, but interesting.
While googling for it I found this article by vice:

The guy has apparently also written a book:

Any Canadian lawyers know if this is mostly applicable to Canadian law?

u/Lee_Ars · 2 pointsr/politics

> Wouldn't that defeat the entire point of the fifth?

"The Department of Justice has now served official notice that it believes the courts should allow a prosecutor to argue under any circumstances that your willingness to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege can and should be used against you as evidence of your guilt." That's from James Duane's book. He's the "never talk to the police" attorney.

Further, Salinas V. Texas really fucked things up for everyone by establishing that "...the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause does not protect a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights."

So, yes, unfortunately, taking the 5th can indeed be used as evidence of your guilt—especially in civil matters, or in a deposition where you haven't been arrested and Mirandized.

u/WiseCynic · 2 pointsr/progressive

For the answer to this and other important questions about American police, please see the book titled "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko.

The paperback should be out soon.

u/tacoman359 · 2 pointsr/news

There's a major communication issue regarding people and institutions/systems, especially on liberal forums such as reddit.

The system of the police force in this country has a culture. It is not a culture that is on the whole reasonable or helpful for the ordinary citizen. The same problems exist in the legislative system, judicial, executive, and our government in general. The culture in law enforcement exists primarily to maintain the status quo, and make money. They make money by busting people for drugs (this is the top focus of nearly every police department), and they maintain the status quo by inciting fear in the citizens (particularly the lower classes, who have the most incentive to fight for change). At the individual level, I doubt very many cops think they are "inciting fear", but that's why we need to get a lot smarter about the way in which we think about systems. Systems have properties that individuals do not (this is known as emergence

It's not that only bad people go into these jobs, or that these jobs always turn people into bad people. But these two factors play a huge role in defining police culture and political culture in America (and many places around the world, and throughout history).

When we blame the individuals (all this "police are scumbags" talk) for the issues, we get nowhere, because culture goes much deeper than individuals (though many times, police are scumbags, and expressing that emotional response is perfectly valid on some level). The whole way that we look at law enforcement in this country (especially starting with the militarization of the police force in the '80s) is terrifying. People are viewed as subjects who need to be controlled, rather than citizens who are a part of this country and have a say in it's direction forward (this is looking more and more like idealistic bullshit, but we're supposed to be a democracy after all).
Here's one source, but you'll find many others with a quick google search:

Tldr; I rambled, and tried to touch on too many different things without saying any one thing in a concrete manner. But it's not only about these particular officers, and it's not only about police officers in general. It's about police culture, and there are clear trends in the way we are being policed that we should be very concerned about.

u/gonucksgo · 2 pointsr/magicTCG
u/mack-the-knife · 2 pointsr/WTF

I highly recommend anyone who want to more about this to read "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces"

It does a good job explaining how it has come to this

u/conn2005 · 2 pointsr/Libertarian

I wish there was more big (L)ibertarian cops. Might result in a drop of taser abuse, shooting peoples pets, militarization of cops, arresting people for victim-less crimes, ect.

u/n00bsauce1987 · 2 pointsr/progun

Also I have to say not in terms of race relations, but in general, America has supported the militarization of our police. Below is some reading that if you want to learn more about this phenomenon, it's here to consume. Such a pro-active response which includes the use of military force from our local police is not necessary as /u/Llanita suggested.

Column: The militarization of U.S. police forces via Yahoo News

At SWAT team expo, protesters decry police militarization via Al Jazaeera America

Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America via CATO Institute

How Cops Became Soldiers: An Interview with Police Militarization Expert Radley Balko via Vice

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces via Amazon

u/hexag1 · 2 pointsr/politics

Check out Radley Balko's new book on this very subject:

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces

u/FionaFiddlesticks · 2 pointsr/politics

It's actually an excerpt from a book! Check it out here:

u/blackhawk61 · 2 pointsr/police
u/Lebo77 · 2 pointsr/videos

Check out the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko. The no-knock raid is a HUGE departure from how warrants have been served for hundreds of years. In fact, the British used similar tactics briefly and it was seen as such an infringement on rights that it was cited as a cause for the American Revolution.

u/squidkiosk · 2 pointsr/news

I recently started reading Radley Balko's "Rise of the warrior cop". If you haven't read it yet I really suggest it:

It's a really in-depth look at how our Police forces became so Militarized over the last few decades.
I think head shots at protestors is a garbage move on their part, even if it is their training. that just bullying mentality paired with firepower.

u/joedonut · 2 pointsr/newjersey

Use of SWAT for situations that don't require it, and are a mere excuse to keep the 'team'? Balko wrote a book about exactly that.

u/nsjersey · 2 pointsr/newjersey

You guys should read this Radley Balko book from 2013.

u/climbandmaintain · 2 pointsr/beholdthemasterrace

That doesn’t work. And it didn’t work during the Black Freedom Struggle either, definitely not in the Deep South.

Armed, violent resistance was necessary.

u/Satanforce · 2 pointsr/Blackfellas

Eat the meat, spit out the bones. Once you realize the authors ideological position, it should be easy to work around that and find the truth. But since there is a new edition of Negroes with Guns out, I'll have to recommend that instead of this.

What I really wanted to make aware with this series of posts was that there is a black gun culture, and that the civil rights movement wasn' all about singing "Kumbahyah."

u/Dissonanticism · 2 pointsr/JusticeServed

> the same problem still exists

Well, we can agree on this. The whole Payday loan market is for suckers who need to take high-risk. On a bigger scale, the scam is how democracy and capitalism actually works in the US (hint: it's an oligarchy, not a real democracy). I feel like Scott Tucker isn't even the biggest fish to fry, but the biggest fish have so much money & power, they're above the law.

u/mnemosyne-0002 · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction

Archives for this post:

u/w00denspoon · 2 pointsr/KotakuInAction
didn't take gamergate, the consequences of feminism alone push people to make the case against them.
The consequences of feminism becoming toxic are readily apparent all around us. From mattress girl to the barren feminist women of merkels europe opening the door to invasion for rather sick reasons
Its become a problem impossible to ignore, its no longer just annoying, its becoming destructive to western civilization.

u/5MinutePlan · 1 pointr/SneerClub

Kindly Inquisitors by Jonathan Rauch described markets as a type of liberal game (decentralized competitive systems for resolving conflict and legitimizing the outcome).

He draws an analogy between liberal games and the theory of evolution. I don't have the book to hand, and I can't remember the exact quote.

But the idea is that a liberal game creates a niche that selects for some things and against others.

So markets select for things that the market values, and against things that the market doesn't value.

Most of the book is focused on liberal science, which he defines as the pursuit of truth (not just things that use the scientific method). So the niche in liberal science is supposed to select for truth and against falsehood.

u/thorsmjollnir · 1 pointr/news
u/TheOnlyKarsh · 1 pointr/skeptic

They assert why it happens, they have yet to support the why.

That the individual just wasn't as well liked as the other interviewees.

You've cited zero objective evidence other then to point to other who make the same assertion without any support.

Incorrect. The discrepancy only exists when you compare all women with all men. Again when comparing equally prepared individuals, in the same job of opposite gender the discrepancy not only vanishes but in many cases women end up ahead.


u/radiantwave · 1 pointr/politics

Because the laws they make are designed to protect the elite, not the people. There was an interesting article I read that talks about how The US is becoming a country with two separate sets of laws, one for the common people and one for the elite.

Glen Greenwald wrote a book on this...

With Liberty and Justice for some

u/white_discussion · 1 pointr/todayilearned

And sometimes it isn't "murder" if there are mitigating circumstances. We have many different charges based on lots of different factors and scenarios. He could be screwed up mentally and not been properly evaluated. I think it is obvious he had incredibly shitty legal representation. I didn't say him killing them was the correct thing to do or that he shouldn't answer for that in some way. All I said was that I, personally, would refuse to convict him of murder given that he had suffered years of abuse and might face the death penalty.

And, I'm sorry, but you are a fool if you think we have even a passable "justice system." Our "justice system" is nothing of the kind. It is a two tiered system of injustice.

You might benefit from reading this book.

u/bames53 · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> In the state of nature we have the right to do so, wouldn't you agree?

No. Certainly you can define a concept of rights and justice which holds that to be true, but there are alternative conceptions which hold that it is not just or right for one person to murder another. You've simply assumed that a 'social contract' is the only way to avoid the problems created by the conception of rights you're using.

Here's one alternative some people use: Justice and rights are defined in terms of who may use or exclude others from what rivalrous goods. Those definitions are called 'property rights'. These definitions don't say anything about what kind of society will develop or how disputes would be resolved in practice. It's only a standard for determining what is or isn't 'just'.

Under this conception of justice what is or isn't just is invariant and does not change based on some collectively decided 'social contract.' What social institutions evolve and whether they promote or retard justice is irrelevant to the basic definition of justice.


> You know that is how it would be structured; it is like an insurance plan. You pay for certain coverage. The more money you have, the more coverage you can get. By that definition, the homeless could just be outright murdered in the street without repercussion. Jails would not exist.

You might be interested in reading some materials on historical examples of how well various things have worked. For example The not so Wild, Wild West, and David Friedman's Legal Systems Very Different From Ours (Draft) (It's not about a bunch of libertarian systems, but it provides a bit of perspective on different systems).

> My dystopia would be one where different laws apply do different people, and your ability to receive protection depends on your ability to pay.

With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

u/iStandWithBrad · 1 pointr/IAmA

>Would this also bring up the case as to. Wether or not we have two different systems of justice in the United States: one for the regular common folk and another for the wealthy elite.

Award-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald actually recently published a book on this subject, titled With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.

u/signtoin · 1 pointr/politics

It's not complex, it's very simple: the powerful and rich have gotten away with crimes for the past decades (to just cover recent history). Here's a great read on the subject.

u/supperslurp · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

That's it in a nutshell. Some more general background is in this great book.

u/manisnotabird · 1 pointr/politics

Glenn Greenwald's 2011 book With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful is a very good history of how elites have increasingly escaped the justice reservered for the rest of us.

u/Malizulu · 1 pointr/technology

Prove me wrong.

Or perhaps read a book. Or watch a lecture.

u/Osterstriker · 1 pointr/Libertarian

Glenn Greenwald examined this problem very extensively in his latest book, With Liberty and Justice for Some. Basically, he traces this modern-day erosion of the rule of law and two-tier justice system to when Ford pardoned Nixon.

He also outlined the major insights of his book in a 2011 interview with Harper's.

u/noodlez222 · 1 pointr/Libertarian
u/reiduh · 1 pointr/bayarea

This woman makes me livid... my blood boils, once more.

I wonder which wrist they'll slap

> "Nadia recognizes her error, and she intends to take all appropriate action to regain her health."

Bullshit. Wasn't that from last time's?

u/BlackJackShellac · 1 pointr/Drugs

This guy has a book now by the way, with specific advice and case studies. I recommend it for any illegal drug user.

u/AutoModerator · 1 pointr/conspiracy link

Why this is here.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

u/bwana_singsong · 1 pointr/TrueReddit

Well, if you actually do have an open mind, you should look into these resources:

  • The Mismeasure of Man. This book touches on the specifics of understanding how race is a social construct that doesn't contain biological imperatives. It also touches in incredible detail about how people distort scientific evidence when it concerns race.
  • Slavery by Another Name (book), paired documentary. These touch on the systems of laws and practices followed after civil war that literally kept slavery alive for black people after the "victory" of the U.S. Civil War and the 13th Amendment. Reading these histories is like enduring one of those movies where the evil sheriff cruelly enforces the law, enslaving the hero (e.g., First Blood: Rambo I). Except unlike the movies, there is no second act, no one ever gets rid of the sheriff, and the hero is worked to death in a mine or a sawmill for no pay. And this went on for decade after decade.
  • Blood in the Face (1995 book), paired documentary from 1991. These touch on the modern racist and skinhead movements.
  • Any history of the civil rights might work. I would suggest Eyes on the Prize (link is just to part 1), with the matching (thin) book written by Juan Williams, now with Fox News. A much longer historical treatment of this period is Parting the Waters
  • Down these Mean Streets is a personal memoir by a Puerto Rican who lived in Spanish Harlem. Piri Thomas, the author of the memoir, was the darkest-skinned son in a large Puerto Rican family. The book covers many things, but there is a special horror when the author realizes how much his own family has rejected him because he is so much darker than they are.
  • It's not directly related to this discussion of American racism, but I found Country of My Skull powerful and moving, the story of a white (boer) journalist who is covering the Truth And Reconciliation Commission, which carefully went over the history of apartheid in South Africa.
  • In addition, you might consider reading a biography of Martin Luther King or Malcolm X.

    You write:

    > Asians are better scholars, and blacks are better athletes than whites, and yet you blithely say that "nothing in the physical makeup" of these people makes them more or less anything. I guess only the good things count.

    No and no. It is you who are asserting false things without evidence on your side. You need to read more, and you need to experience more.

    For me, the coin really dropped when I was tutoring a Chinese girl in Calculus when I was finally in a big college in a major city. Every Asian I had known until then in my provincial upbringing had been smart and engaging. I fully believed the stereotype of scholarly asians. Even there in college, my girlfriend at the time was Chinese and wicked smart. So I had "evidence" for my belief, but it was being contradicted by her stubborn inability to understand the math in front of her. It finally just hit me right then that this lady I was tutoring was kind of stupid as far as math went. Nothing wrong with that, but that was the moment that it hit me that the positive stereotype I had had was blinding me to the reality of the situation, and what she could literally understand.

    I hope you'll consider what I've written, and read one or more of the books I've suggested. They've all been important to me.
u/conspirobot · 1 pointr/conspiro

shitlaw: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

one of the most emotionally eviscerating tragedies of American constitutional jurisprudence is the Court's abandonment of the Ninth Amendment. everyone should read The Forgotten Ninth Amendment.

u/GeauxMik · 1 pointr/Libertarian
u/bkenobi · 1 pointr/news

if you want to know more history on the subject, read "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" it talks about all this stuff

u/Bbaily · 1 pointr/conspiracy

read this: "Rise of the warrior cop" it's not a bashing session it's very well written and researched documentary on how and why we have "police state lite" soon to be far worse.

u/kewlfocus · 1 pointr/WTF
u/AllWrong74 · 1 pointr/Libertarian

We've been ranting about a police state for far longer than the deal in Ferguson. Radley Balko literally wrote the book on police militarization, and has been preaching against it for far longer than the book has been in print, for instance.

u/vitamalz · 1 pointr/WTF
u/alexa-blue · 1 pointr/bestofthefray

On my reading list. Do you think this is getting more publicity? I mostly get the sense that the media is a mouthpiece for the official story line. Don't disagree with you, TK, bite, except that I don't think overstating the facts serves any good. An alternative (to me) take here.

u/dazhealy · 1 pointr/ireland

Its over reccommended on reddit at the moment but Rise of the Warrior Cop gives a great account of the problems with American police forces.

One thing I can say about the Gardaí is that I wouldn't swap them for any armed police force in the world.

u/Zalwol · 1 pointr/politics

If you haven't yet purchased Radley's book, do it now.

u/Tom_Bombadilesq · 1 pointr/news

I was offering the link simply as a means to link to the text itself; and not as an endorsement of the reviews on GoodReads (which I know nothing of their authenticity)

I prefer to read books myself rather than leave it to someone else to decide for me if I ought to read a book or what opinion I ought to have on a particular book

If you prefer I different link to the text that you may find more palatable (or not)

u/tacosforbreakfastt · 1 pointr/Conservative

"police have a financial incentive to focus on drugs. Federal grant programs, such as the Edward J. Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, reward local and state police for the number of people they arrest."

You are severely misinformed. You are citing anecdotal evidence from 'court in a big city.' AND the statistics you provided only show one crime, the problem is much larger, as I said.

Pick up a copy of this book from conservative writer Radley Balko and you will quickly change your stance. I promise.

u/brzcory · 1 pointr/todayilearned

I'd be okay with it being banned, but I wouldn't really support it.

Banning something that's not really a problem goes against my personal views. It's like banning assault weapons to stop gun crime, in spite of the fact that killings involving rifles are less than 1% of gun crime. Just stupid feel-good legislation that doesn't do anything to actually combat the problem.

But I'm all for police being on (mostly) the same ground as your average citizen. Much like they are in Britain. Sure, they've got a bunch of buddies, radios, and high-viz vests, but you're not seeing British police shoot black kids all day for wearing a hoodie.

And it really goes back to a mindset. Police in America are in this stupid war-on-cops mindset that they're going to be shot at sometime during their service and need to be on the lookout all the time for the lone gunman who's going to shoot them. That's a completely false narrative that leads to thousands of needless civilian casualties every year. More police die on-the-job of heart attacks and traffic accidents than of violence.

If you ever get bored, this is a pretty good read. Really opens your eyes to what police are nowadays, versus what they're intended to be.

u/brbEightball · 1 pointr/GlobalOffensive

It's true, you can find wiki articles cataloguing hundreds, perhaps thousands of officer-involve shootings.

Radley Balko has written a few books on this subject, they're worth checking out:

Without revealing too much, I have had a death in my family as a result of such an incident...

u/illimitable1 · 1 pointr/nashville

I don't believe that incarcerating people as we do actually achieves a safer or better society. I think the war on drugs is a costly sham that infringes on everyone's ability to live in a free country. White lawbreakers, especially drug users, get away with more in my experience than do nonwhites. These are the three arguments that rang true for me in her book, despite blathering on for pages and pages about details that I have no way to verify the truth of, like federal sentencing laws about powdered cocaine versus crack.

We lock up so many damn people. It's not because US people are born more criminal than people elsewhere, I don't think. Something about the "land of the free" having the highest per-capita incarceration rate in the world is fucked up: I'm pretty sure you and I would come to an agreement about that, even if nothing else.

What did you think of Rise of the Warrior Cop, which came out at about the same time?

u/YawnsMcGee · 1 pointr/news

There is an incredibly good book that answers that question and gives a full background on the reasoning. It's called Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces. I highly recommend it.

u/the_ancient1 · 1 pointr/news

ROFL, that is funny right there...

I always love when people assume another person is young or unwise simply because their world view differs from there own.

No I do not have "alot of growing up to do"

My libertarian position has evolved over many many years of research and personal reflection, while it is still evolving and will always until I die, my views on modern policing will not evolve to support the current state of affirs where the police can detonate a bomb in the face of a child with no terminations or criminal charges, where police can murder a person legally carrying a firearm and not be found guilty of murder, where police can raid a home with fully automatic weapons in a military style assault because the occupants toss out some loose leaf tea in their garbage and no one is fired or charged with a crime.

No it sounds like you need to do some more research into the state of Modern Policing, I recommend starting with Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces

u/boobies23 · 1 pointr/news
u/gotblues · 1 pointr/nyc

We are living a trend of police militarization. Here's a good popular book about it.

u/wonder_er · 1 pointr/Libertarian

using something "society" wants as enough impetuous to force everyone to pay for it is dangerous.

For example, the USA seems to be at war all over the world, for very bad reasons.

I wish I could opt out of paying for the military. If the government had no funds to make payroll, we'd make very different foreign policy decisions, very quickly.

Re: the justice system - it DOES serve those with money already. Just instead of paying for the courts directly, people with money pay a lawyer who can usually get them a tolerable outcome.

If you don't have money (and sometimes if you do) you still get ground under the heavy hand of "justice".

Very, very little criminal justice activity is regular small-crimes prosecution (like robbery). It's not lucrative enough to justify the police spending their time on it.

I recommend Three Felonies A Day for a better dig into courts.

Another good read is Rise of the Warrior Cop.

Also, full disclosure, the way the courts should function is great! I love what their goal is. But the way they do function is often such a gross perversion of justice it makes me think that a private courts system would do it better, if no other reason then it couldn't be so over-the-top predatory.

If you want an even stranger read, check out Market for Liberty. The authors sketch out what a private courts and police system might look like.

u/noclevername · 1 pointr/whatisthisthing

Surplus military hardware that is sold to local police. Here's an interesting book on the subject.

u/buckyVanBuren · 1 pointr/todayilearned

Probably Radley Balko. He keeps a close eye out on cases like this and has just released a book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces, concerning this subject.

I am currently reading it and it is enlightening.

Amazon link

u/Stolles · 1 pointr/SubredditDrama

> Last year, 64 police officers were shot and killed

Source please? I'm signed up to the mailing list for ODMP (Officer Down Memorial Page) so I get an email every time an officer dies.

They have it on record that 73 officers died last year. Or were you JUST going by shooting statistics? And not stabbings or otherwise

>44 unarmed civilians were shot and killed by the police. Even when no weapons at all are present, the police seem disproportionately trigger-happy out there.

You need to take it literally case by case, unarmed does NOT mean not dangerous as so many people love to assume, do yourself a favor and check out the book In Context: Understanding Police Killings of Unarmed Civilians it's the most detailed look into that issue that I have found.

Cops are not trigger happy, majority of cops never fire their service weapon during the lifetime of their career.

>It's also worth noting that Chauffeurs & Taxi drivers are both more likely to die on the job overall than police and more likely to be killed by violence while on the job than the police.

So? I have people spout at me that being a trashman is more dangerous, the sole difference is that people are not LOOKING to kill you necessarily, people do not hate taxi drivers, people do want to kill and do hate the police. The difference is working in a field where people want to kill you compared to the sometimes occupational hazard of working as a clerk and getting robbed or killed.

Being a trashman is only dangerous because of accidents that happen that could usually be avoided, my father, uncle and his wife all work as trash collectors and my father was in a pretty bad accident that was in the local paper of him being airlifted and he had a concussion, he is still more worried about me wanting to be a cop than if I were to tell him I wanted to be a trashman. That tells you something.

>And yet if Taxi Drivers had shot 44 unarmed people last year, I doubt there would be nearly as many people jumping in to defend them.

The drivers would need to prove that they had a reasonable fear for their life, just like every civilian does and every cop does when taking someone's life in self defense. If you don't agree with the judge and jury that is your problem.

>If we cannot even hold our police to the same standards (much less higher standards) of conduct than Taxi drivers, then there is a serious problem.

There is a serious problem when you're trying to compare being a police officer and a taxi driver.

u/SnapshillBot · 1 pointr/MGTOW

Archived for your convenience


  1. This Post -, [*]( "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!"), [*]( "could not auto-archive; click to resubmit it!")

    ^(I am a bot.) ^([Info](/r/SnapshillBot) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=\/r\/SnapshillBot))
u/scottwuzhear · 0 pointsr/Charlotte

Cops do not work to make sure you are safe. They are under no obligation to protect you, they only execute the law. Cops are nigh untouchable and invincible nowadays. They can be filmed assaulting, harassing, or killing someone and get off with nothing more than a paid vacation. Our police forces are being militarized, walking the streets with assault rifles, patrolling the streets with military vehicles and anti-landmine vehicles. I suggest you read Rise of the Warrior Cop.

u/libertariangranola · 0 pointsr/Bitcoin

Far more relevant are the militarized police forces around the country and all of the gangs fuelled by the War on (some) Drugs.

u/datenschwanz · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

You can read much more of the formation of the first swat teams in Radley Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop". Highly suggested reading.

u/Old_LandCruiser · -1 pointsr/CCW

That type of statement makes you look suspicious and uncooperative.

Nobody should talk to the police. If you do have to, give a very brief statement. Something like "that guy was doing X(reason you killed him), I had to protect myself and my family. I'll be happy to cooperate further after I speak to my lawyer, but I won't answer anymore questions right now"

Quite frankly, everyone should respectfully invoke their 5th Amendment right any time the police want to question you more than about what you're doing right here, right now, and who you are. Other than that, you should have a lawyer. Even if you didnt just shoot someone in self defense. You never know what a detective will try to pin on you after twisting your words or asking leading questions.

EDIT: Everyone should also read this book. Whether you carry a gun or not:

u/OscarZAcosta · -1 pointsr/legaladvice

>You're referring to civil forfeiture of crime-related assets. That can only happen when a crime has occurred.

Rather than catalogue the hundreds of thousands of times assets have been seized and forfeited on mere suspicion of connection to drug activity, I'll just refer you to these articles and one Radley Balko who has made his living, in part, by detailing the massive amounts of money stolen through civil asset forfeiture.

Balko began writing on forfeiture when he worked at Reason, continued when he moved to HuffPo, and wrote a little book on why, exactly, it is in the best interest of police departments to steal, via civil asset forfeiture. You might have heard of's gotten massive international attention for the last year or so.

tl;dr: Anyone who thinks civil asset forfeiture can only happen when a crime occurs has been living under a rock for the last 50 years.

u/RuprectGern · -2 pointsr/JusticePorn

[Glenn Greenwald - With liberty and justice for some. ] (

u/Gracchi2016 · -2 pointsr/Documentaries

>I'm not sure if we are there now, but it feels like we have gotten to the point where law and opportunity are not equal for all.

We are there, this book by Glenn Greenwald provides some pretty good concrete examples.

u/HotSnaxx · -4 pointsr/BestOfOutrageCulture

Actually, Leftists (not to be confused with progressive liberals. I'm sorry, but yall are left of hardcore reactionaries, but not "the Left") have often been vocal supporters of the right to self defense, because police torture and murder "undesirables" has been pretty much the main reason modern policing exists. It's not an aberration that police execute an African American every 28 hours, and gun control will do nothing to stop police militarization or brutality. And that is a far bigger source of violence than the AK sitting in my locked chest.

y'all really need to learn some people's history. I know this'll fall on deaf ears, because American politics is about performance and aesthetics, fueled by denial--see how the anti-war movement that elected Obama became very copacetic with his administration's expansion of mass murder oversees. As long as it's not a Republican doing it, it's not a serious issue, apparently, which is why y'all support the war criminal Hillary Clinton (along with the bankers that tanked the economy and turned millions out onto their asses).

But in the vain hope that someone here will maybe reconnect with our once-proud and independent Left tradition, I leave a link.

u/TominatorXX · -5 pointsr/law

Yes, when it involves very rich people or people who work in or own large banks. What's the saying: The easiest way to rob a bank is to own one?

Here are two books which should look good in your paper:

  1. Matt Taibi:

  2. Glenn Greenwald:

    Both books deal with how prosecutions these days are not being done if you are rich enough and powerful enough. My favorite statistic is the number of bankers that liberal Ronald Reagan's DOJ put in jail during the S and L crisis of the 80s' (thouands? 1,800?) versus Barak's prosecution of NOBODY, basically, in the large banks. And, worse, DOJ admitting, yeah, we're not prosecuting them. HSBC money launders for Al Queda and drug lords. No problem. Civil or criminal fine is enough. No jailtime for anyone.

    DOJ had a press conference and Holder admitted, yeah, we're not going to prosecute big banks because they're too big, we'd worry about the impact. Huh what? That's something truly new and worthy of your attention. More sources:
u/droppingadeuce · -7 pointsr/legaladvice

I'm curious about your background, for the purpose of understanding your perspective. I'm a limited license prosecutor, and even the prosecutors in my conservative, rural county aren't nearly the police apologist you seem to be. Are you in law enforcement yourself?

/u/genuinerysk's comment is a legitimate statement. You might be interested in learning more.

u/DashingLeech · -10 pointsr/politics

> “It could have been Dr. Seuss or the Berenstain Bears on the ballot and I would have voted for them if they were a Democrat,” he said. “I might do more analyses in other years. But in this case, no. No one else gets any consideration because what’s going on with the Republicans—I’m talking about Trump and his cast of characters—is stupid, stupid, stupid. I can’t say stupid enough times.”

The authors here agree with that sentiment, both with "Count us in, Mr. Beasley" and the title, "If conservatives want to save the GOP from itself, they need to vote mindlessly and mechanically against its nominees."

To me, this kind of thinking is the problem. It's definitely not the solution. The problem is mindless ingroup/outgroup tribalist psychology.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons to vote against Trump or a bunch of Republican nominees. I can't imagine voting for Trump or just about any Republican. But, this is a one-sided analysis. It doesn't look at Democrats and whether they've gone off the deep edge either. And doing that is what makes Republicans mindlessly vote for Republicans, for those who mindless vote.

If you actually listen to Republican supporters, many of them say the exact same things as this article, but against the Democrats. For example, the point out that Clinton tried to claim repeatedly that being a woman was an important merit ("played the woman card") rather than the liberal position that it is wrong to discriminate based on gender. or Sally Boyton Brown running for DNC Chair saying, "My job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt." (If you listen to the whole thing, she's judging everybody based on race and wants people's speech to be controlled based on what skin colour they have. That's incredibly racist and a human rights violation, if carried out, and people are cheering her. If you actually read the Democratic Party policy for the 2016 election, it literally contains absurd Marxist views, such as claiming that differences in statistical outcomes by different identity groups are due to systemic racism (with no evidence to demonstrate that claim) and describes ending racism in the U.S. by being selectively discriminatory based on race, which is a contradiction and quite racist by liberal principles, and actually increases racial hatred according to ingroup/outgroup psychology, understanding of the psychological prcoess, empirical history, moral philosophy, and legislated human rights, including the Civil Rights Act and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In other words, if the Democrats want to reduce racism, they are doing the exactly wrong thing.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with all of that, but they make a fair point. Left-wing extremism has seeped far up the chain of the Democratic Party and they are at least paying lip service opportunistically to some very bad policies that have caused mass suffering and hatred in the past. These policies certainly have the potential to be dangerously harmful and divisive to the very people they are supposed to help. I'm not convinced that most Democrats would support the absurd parts of these policies, of course.

Nor do I necessarily believe the Democrats are worse than Republicans. But, if you are going to do one-sided analysis against the absurdity of "them", you need to listen to the same analysis that Republicans do to Democrats, and why voters should blindly vote against Democrats.

The problem itself is mindless tribalism. We actually need to sit down and debate each policy and each candidate one at a time on their own merits. Not along party lines. Not along ideological lines, but what is the evidence for the policy or that the candidate is qualified for the job, or that they are not holding extreme views or promoting extreme policies.

Both parties have this problem. I am surprised to see Jonathan Rauch as an author on this article because he is an incredibly strong free speech advocate and Kindly Inquisitors is a great book that goes into great detail about why the open debate and analysis of ideas is incredibly important rather than blind faith in ideological leanings, which goes against what he writes in this article as well as the Democratic Party policies above. It might be a blind spot for him.

I think simply playing into blind tribalism will make matters worse and intensify the polar partisanship even more. It's already at the point of physical violence. Expect more of that.

I think a much better approach is for members of both parties to challenge their party ideologies and policies and bring them toward center in policy, but also in demonizing the other party. Centrism and deep debate of ideas is the solution, not blind tribalism. Rauch should know this.