Who Pays For Police Misconduct?

Published On February 25, 2013 | By CopBlock | Articles

This guest post was submitted by Chirs. If you have a story to share please use our Submit a post link

Full Story

Who pays when police misbehave?

In 2006, Rennie Simmons, a 20-year Chicago Water Department employee — and stroke victim — visited the home of Glenn Evans to issue a notice that that water to the property could be cut off, due to lack of payment. Court records indicate that while there, Evans tackled the man to the ground, causing multiple injuries, according to a court complaint. Following the altercation, Evans arrested him — turns out Evans is a lieutenant.

Simmons was arrested and charged with committing battery against Evans and was eventually found not guilty in Cook County Court, during a time in which the judge shared harsh words with Simmons. Evans kept his job, and continues to receive a six-figure salary. He did not contribute to the $99,999 payout given to Simmons after a settlement was reached over a civil complaint regarding the same incident.

In July, two settlements led to the payouts of $7.17 million for victims who alleged torture by former Chicago Police Cmdr. Jon Burge.

In these cases, Burge was convicted of trying to cover up the torture, and he served more than four years in prison as a result. Yet the cost of the settlements fell on the shoulders of the government agency, funded through taxpayers.

In February, the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) announced a victory when they reached a $6.2 million settlement in a class action lawsuit stemming from the arrest of 700 anti-war protesters in 2003 by Chicago officers. While the NLG did not argue police brutality, they did cite police misconduct, as arrests made were violations of the protesters’ right to peacefully assemble. The crowd was also not ordered to disperse before arrests were made.

In Seattle, an agreement was reached between the police department and Justice Department in July to create a police commission tasked with monitoring police behavior and increasing citizen input following the shooting of a homeless Native American man in 2010. He died from gunshot wounds inflicted by an officer. In that case, investigators deemed the action to be unconstitutional, as excessive force had been used.

These incidents only represent the thousands of cases of police misconduct and brutality carried out in the U.S. each year. According to the CATO Institute’s National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project (NPMSRP), $347.4 million was spent between April 2009 and June 2010 on settlements and judgements related to misconduct and brutality. That price tag reflects 5,986 separate incidents during that time period, 382 of which resulted in fatalities.

In its annual report, the CATO Institute claims the numbers through 2010 remained consistent, with $346.5 million spent on related judgements, settlements, court costs and attorney fees from January-December 2010. During that time, the organization’s statistics show 4,861 incidents reported throughout the year, involving more than 6,600 law enforcement officials and 6,826 victims.

Yet with consistently high numbers and settlements reaching in the millions, it seems there has been no other solution presented other than to deal with the issue at hand, reach into the settlement funds and move on. The numbers show the tactic isn’t necessarily deterring the actions, and the cost continues to mount for taxpayers.

What’s the solution?
When a law enforcement official steps out of his or her bounds and harms an individual without due cause, the initial action by an officer’s department is to launch an internal investigation. During that time period, the officer is typically put on administrative leave, a time in which they continue to receive salary payments.

If a settlement is reached, the law enforcement department is tasked with turning over the payment — the financial threat to the officer in question is nothing more than a pink slip, or in some cases, the loss of employment. The financial burden of such settlements and leaves lies on the shoulders of the very people who are attempting to hold the officials accountable for their harmful actions.

Creating a system within the law enforcement departments that would somehow tie officers’ wages to settlements relating to their behavior could perhaps deter officers from acting out, knowing that the burden would be seen within their bank account, rather than a settlement fund they have no control over.

 

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

When you see "CopBlock" as the author it means it was submitted via our contact tab - see top of page. Anyone can share their police related story with CopBlock.org via this tab, we thank you in advance.
  • tz

    Or cut the retirement (and/or survivors) benefits proportionately. So one bad cop might cause a good cop to retire in poverty.

  • certain

    Nothing will change until police unions are forbidden by federal law. When you work on the public dime, and your performance is NOT tied to income, as it is with a private company, you don’t need a union. Police pay rates should be set in line with the average income in an area, and should NOT be negotiable. Police unions have done more harm to society than just about any other organized labor movement. And considering the history of some unions, that’s really saying something.

  • 1605

    Police should secure individual insurance for claims against them or be independently responsible for their actions. Sovereign immunity needs to end and the mercenaries on the streets need to be contained.

  • Dan Sayers

    Malpractice insurance. Doctors have it and they’re actually doing a noble profession.

    @tz: The problem with your suggestion is again not holding the guilty person responsible.

  • Hey

    Police gang unions is very dangerous for everyone in the community and usually city Mayors are their puppet to manipulate and intimidate.

  • Lakewood_in_Afghanistan

    Dan,

    Excellent idea. Many cops would become uninsurable very quickly, and find more useful vocations, like picking up cans by the side of the road.

  • RadicalDude

    I sued the police in a civil rights case, and managed to “win” a settlement. I litigated the case myself, and did all the filings, etc. I didn’t use a lawyer, I only consulted w/ one for about 15 minutes and that was it, I did the lawsuit myself.
    The case was litigated for about 5 yrs before I got paid, we kept filing stuff like motions and counter-motions. A few points:
    1. @ 1605: The courts recognize cops as having “qualified” immunity, which is different from the idea of “sovereign immunity”.
    The idea of “qualified immunity” is basically that if the cop should have known, because it was “clearly established” @t the time of a controversial incident, that what he did was wrong, he can be sued, but that if it hadn’t yet been “clearly established” that what he did was wrong, then he is immune. Not saying I agree w/ it, but that’s basically what flies in court.
    2. If you want to take a legal action to go after the cop’s finances directly rather than the municipality, THERE ARE STRATEGIES YOU CAN USE to do that!!! For one, you sue him in his “personal” capacity, not “official” capacity. And you don’t name the municipality as a defendant. In many areas, I believe(speculating here, could be mistaken) that by doing so, he is also NOT ENTITLED to representation
    paid for by the municipality. Which means if he hires a lawyer he pays the lawyer bills. Not 100% sure on this point, but I believe that’s how it works in many areas. Also : DON’T TAKE THE SETTLEMENT, especially if you think you have a legitimate chance of getting a verdict bigger than the settlement.
    3. You don’t need a lawyer. If you say you’re not gonna sue because no lawyer will take your case, you are making excuses, you can do it if your case is legit and you believe in yourself.

  • Chris

    Hey “No Common Sense” I thought us tax payers don’t fund police misconduct according to you. But this article says otherwise. Oh, I forgot. According to you I don’t pay taxes so I don’t pay for police misconduct. Whatever…

  • Common Sense

    No, you don’t pay taxes Chris, we’ve gone over this. I’d even go so far as to state that about 20-25% of those who comment here, are actual taxpayers. The rest…no so much.

    There are several different way cities/counties/states settle/pay lawsuits. Unless punitive damages are awarded, then the police officer does not personally pay. He/she can be termed for a department violation, but unless their actions ‘shock the conscious’ of the court and are ‘clear violations of law’ then the city/county/state pays.

    I trust after several discussions, those here are finally gettig the grasp of what ‘qualified immunity’ actually means. Its not ‘absolute immunity’ – that’s reserved for judges, legislators and the POTUS. And no, unless the officer ‘acts outside the scope’ of their duties, you cannot sue them ‘personally.’ I know it sounds catchy, but when you talk about ‘persons’ and ‘offical office’ and such, it gets sorta confusing, but unless they violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” then they are acting within the scope of their duties and thus when you sue, you sue their ‘office’ not the individual.

    “…A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless his “act is so obviously wrong, in the light of preexisting law, that only a plainly incompetent officer or one who was knowingly violating the law would have done such a thing.”…”

    You’ll have to read some case law (start with Will v Michigan State Poilce) but you’ll get the point. I also know several federal agents who have everything (house, cars, pension) in their parents names to safeguard it, just in case a Bivens action comes up. Smart thinking, since those penky ‘freeman’ think they can sue everything under the sun. And most, if not all, wrongful death/brutality suits involving the police go federal. Why? That’s were the bigger million dollar settlements live.

    Larger departments carry ‘risk managament’ insurance, very much like car insurance. Smaller ones, can settle payments with ‘rainy day funds’ or bonds. Don’t be shocked by large settlements. No large city, Chicago, LA, or NYC will go bankrupt for a few million dollars here or there. Its honestly like a speeding ticket. Its something they budget for. And no, this will never change, the attorney and their lobbyists will see to it (at $300/hr). That why you will never see tort reform.

    Annually, there are anywhere from 20-25,000 civil lawsuits filed against the police. By way of comparison, the medical field has around 15-20,000 claims and even Walmart has around 5,000 lawsuits annually. Notice that even “police misconduct” stated that just under 6000 are litigated. Could this mean that 70% are tossed out? Perhaps. Perhaps some cases of ‘misconduct’ never reach the stage of litigation and still some cases are not really misconduct after all, only a news headline that CATO grabs. Its a very ‘litigious’ world today. The burden of proof is only 51%. Did you read that a homeless man has filed suit against his parents for not ‘loving him enough.’ Classic liberal.

    Trust me, the only ones who get ‘big paydays’ are the attorneys, and widows. There are actual chart that graph a person’s worth. What your level of education, dependants, occupation, is all graphed out. A typoical person is worth around 2-3 million dollars. When the police kill someone, there will be a lawsuit. And when there’s an award or settlement, trust me, the IRS gets a little letter telling them that joe citizen just won the stoner lottery.

  • slappy

    Another activist rant. The officer was cleared of anything and I’m sure the guys water was shut off.

  • t.

    This is a really tough subject and a lot more in depth than most know or want to know. Certainly there are horrible police abuses that should never be tolerated. But simply looking at the surface paints false pictures on all sides of the issue, and overly generalized statements about only could things.

    “Qualified. Immunity” isn’t as simple as is generally presented around here. Not only a officers not atomaically granted it….they aren’t even frequently granted it. Inentional acts are easier to pinpoint as wrong (or right). Negilence is harder. And then there are the majority of everything that false somewhere in the middle. Scenarios are endless, with countless variables. But simply looking at things like a city deciding to “pay out” as measure o wrong doing, is inaccurate at best. Those decisions are made primarily on a cost / benefit analysis, keeping in mind the letigize world in which we live. The costs of doing any business has risen dramatically as the result of people (peers) sitting on juries and not only allowing, BT wanting and helping people “cash in” on things. The easy example is the guy who spills coffee on himself and then sues the restaurant that made the coffee. His actions lead to his own injury but juries award rediculous settlements…at higher cost to us all. Tort reform is badly needed across the entire spectrum.

    On of the other favorite tag lines around here are police unions. Very simply put, not all officers are in unions, and most can’t even be in one. That not arguing for or against the unions, its just clarifying that over generalization as not very accurate.

    Another very misunderstood idea is that the city defends the officers if sued. Maybe, if hes lucky. Mos likely he will either hire his own or get resprentationthrough an organization (like the PBA) that they are a member of. Again, overly generalized and inaccurate.

    As for suing them as indiidual. Maybe, by most likely they will be granted immunity in that circumstance. But maybe, the variables are so numerous. This idea goes back to my advice to my felloe officers to sue those that file false complaints about them. I suceeed twice and know other that have as well. Most officers don’t want to take the time and hassle, but I think its worth it if only for the future in that departments tend to easily knuckle under on complainants.

    Not trying to starts fight about it, just saying its a lot deeper and more complex issue than what is normal reflected here.

  • BluEyeDevil

    COMMON SENSE,
    I AM A TAXPAYER MOTHER FUCKER (HOME, BUSINESS, STATE, FEDERAL, EVERYTHING FUCKING THING I SPEND THE FRUITS OF MY LABOR ON) YOUR WHOLE RANT MEANS NOTHING AND DOES NOT DESERVE FURTHER READING WHILE YOU INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE. ARE YOU PART OF THE 20/25% OF THE TAXPAYERS ON THIS SIGHT? DO YOU LIKE PAYING FOR THE 1/3 OF A BILLION IN PAYOUTS BECAUSE OF YOUR BROTHERS IN BLUE’S UNPROFESSIONALISM, SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU RETARD.

    SLAPPY,
    QUIT BABELING BRO, ITS LIKE THE WORDS ARE ON THERE BUT ARRANGED IN A UNRECKONIZEABLE ORDER IN A BANTER OF NON SENSE. GOD DAMN YOU ARE STUPID.

    T.,
    THERE ARE EASY SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM:
    1. RAISE THE STANDARDS FOR EMPLOYMENT BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS. IT IS THIS EASY REALLY.
    2. REFORM DEPARTMENT POLICIES TO STRICTLY FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, TRAIN ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CITIZENS RIGHTS, THE USE OF NON VIOLENT OR LESS INVASIVE TACTICS WHEN MAKING AN ARREST, NON ENFORCEMENT OF VICTIMLESS CRIME, INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATIONS IN MISCONDUCT.
    3. HOLD THOSE WHO BREAK THE TRUST OF THE PUBLIC TO A HIGHER STANDARD AND PROSECUTE THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.
    4. ABOLISH ALL PUBLIC UNIONS.
    5. DO NOT HIRE VETERANS OUT OF A WAR ZONE, THEY SHOULD TOTALLY DEBRIEFED AND SENSITIZED TO CIVILIAN LIFE. NOT ALL BUT A LOT OF THEM ARE TIME BOMBS
    6. SET THE EXAMPLE, DO NOT STOOP TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINALS

    I WOULD SAY THIS WOULD BE A GOOD START.
    I WILL AGREE WITH YOU QUALIFIED IMMUNITY IS NOT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY BUT THE FACT THAT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY EVEN EXISTS GIVES POLICE OFFICERS A FALSE SENSE OF SECURITY TO BE AS VILE AS THEY WANT ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE UNEDUCATED ON THE SUBJECT AND THINK THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW. AGAIN GOING BACK TO HIRING PRACTICES. AND I CAN AGREE WITH YOU THIS IS A COMPLEX ISSUE BUT CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE. IS IT WORTH IT TO YOU COPS TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE YOU ARE PART OF?

  • t.

    Devil: The problem is, as discussed under Pete’s last post…that without qualified immunity you would have people suing the government t every time their house got broken into, or they got hurt by some drunk driver. Senseless lawsuits still get paid out all the time, even when the officers and government did it wrong. Without that, the payouts would be more frequent and cost you a lot more money.

    As for constitutional idea. We spend lots of time, every year on just that. The problem is, like I schooled George Sands on in her last post is the idea of what that document means….even just as written and not when intermingled with other documents…is very open to interpretation, as exampled by her continued misunderstanding of a fairly straight forward case like Tenn vs Garner. A really timely example is the on going gun debate. Most university historians will say the the second amendment is clearly discussing the arming of a militia to defend the new nation as there wasn’t (and couldn’t be) any standing army. But like everything else, for each expert that say that, there is a counter expert that will say the opposite.

  • Common Sense

    …and the state thanks you for your payment devil.

  • Chris

    Hey “NO COMMON SENSE”, that’s a lot of rambling you piece of shit COP!!! You need to get a life! Your comments keep changing. First it was 90% of the people that visit this website don’t pay taxes – now its 75% to 80%? I’m confused? Do you pay your taxes?

    You got a badge!!!

  • RadicalDude

    Quoted from Common Sense:
    “No, you don’t pay taxes Chris, we’ve gone over this. I’d even go so far as to state that about 20-25% of those who comment here, are actual taxpayers. The rest…no so much.”

    @Common Sense:
    Not sure if this is a joke or serious, if it’s serious, how do you presume to know better than he would? I think most Americans pay taxes, don’t cop’s wages come from sales taxes and such? We usually pay taxes just eating.

    Quoted from Common Sense:
    “There are several different way cities/counties/states settle/pay lawsuits. Unless punitive damages are awarded, then the police officer does not personally pay. He/she can be termed for a department violation, but unless their actions ‘shock the conscious’ of the court and are ‘clear violations of law’ then the city/county/state pays.”

    @Common Sense:
    I think that’s a generalization, yes it probably does work kind of like that generally. But you don’t have to prove their actions “shock the court” to go for punitive/exemplary damages, you can also get punitive damages if a jury finds the cop acted with “callous indifference” or “reckless indifference” to the plaintiff’s civil rights. Also,I believe most such law suits also bring the municipality in as a defendant, and sue the cop in his “official”
    capacity. And I also think plaintiff’s/ lawyers deliberately do this to leverage a settlement. The strategy I suggest is different, which is: sue the cop in his individual capacity only, and leave the municipality out of it, and don’t take a settlement unless the cop is personally paying. That way, if you take it to trial and win, judgment would be entered against the cop personally, which would allow plaintiff to garnish his paychecks.

    Quoted from Common Sense:
    “And no, unless the officer ‘acts outside the scope’ of their duties, you cannot sue them ‘personally.’ I know it sounds catchy, but when you talk about ‘persons’ and ‘offical office’ and such, it gets sorta confusing, but unless they violate a “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” then they are acting within the scope of their duties and thus when you sue, you sue their ‘office’ not the individual.”

    @Common Sense:
    It is not within the scope of a cops’ “duties” to make a false arrest, use excessive force, falsely imprison someone, or violate their civil rights. Just because a cop might do these things “on the clock” while ostensibly “on duty”, doesn’t mean the actions themselves are “within the scope of their duty”. If you go around committing crimes on the clock, the mere fact of being on the clock does not put those criminal acts themselves within the purview of your duties. And if the cop didn’t violate the law, there would be no grounds for a 1983 claim anyway. Yes you absolutely can sue a cop in his individual capacity if he acts ultra vires to violate your rights.

  • RadicalDude

    Quoting from t.:
    Another very misunderstood idea is that the city defends the officers if sued. Maybe, if hes lucky. Mos likely he will either hire his own or get resprentationthrough an organization (like the PBA) that they are a member of. Again, overly generalized and inaccurate.

    @t.:I know when I sued the cops, the city attorney represented the cops, as well as the city. Now, if I had not sued the city, and had only sued the police in their individual capacities, that may have been different. I saw on the website of the city that their “city policy” was to defend departments in court, not individuals. That is why I suggest a strategy of suing them personally, and not the municipality: to put the burden of the lawyer bills on the cop personally.

    Quoted from t.:
    As for suing them as indiidual. Maybe, by most likely they will be granted immunity in that circumstance. But maybe, the variables are so numerous. This idea goes back to my advice to my felloe officers to sue those that file false complaints about them. I suceeed twice and know other that have as well. Most officers don’t want to take the time and hassle, but I think its worth it if only for the future in that departments tend to easily knuckle under on complainants.

    @t.:
    I think the criteria courts generally use to determine immunity/ liability is whether the law was “clearly established” at the time of the incident that what they did was wrong/illegal. Whether they are sued in their official capacity or personal is usually not relevant as far as that goes.
    What were the grounds for your lawsuits you did, I would guess “defamation of character”?

    One other point: when you sue a municipality you also take on a burden of proof that the cop’s illegal actions were caused by a “policy”, or due to negligence in creating “policy”. It doesn’t have to be an official policy, you can also do it by proving a “pattern” or “practice” exists within the department. Another reason to go after the cop personally: when you sue him personally, you don’t have to prove he acted according to a “policy”.

  • RadicalDude

    Oh yeah, another thing:
    When you sue the “feds” (FBI, DEA, border patrol, secret service, etc)
    I believe they get a “US attorney” to represent them as a matter of policy, even if you sue them personally. With local city police departments it may vary, I don’t know for sure. But when you bring the city in as a defendant, you also bring in the city attorney. On the other hand, the city attorney might not be too great of a lawyer. If they were, they would probably be in private practice.

  • t.

    Dude: A very good analysis. The city defends the city. Sometimes that means defending the officer…some times that may mean seleraring themselves from the officer. That’s not saying that those cities are saying an officer acted inappropriately…its just legal maneuvering.

    Both of the cases I sued for where both defamation cases and both centered around excessive use of force. In the first there were multiple “street” witnesses (from a part of town that’s not genre rally very friendly to the police) that were identified and and testified as to the falsness of the claim. The second was in a barroom situation where video clearly showed that nothingthat the “vvictim” claimed had happened at all. Those 2 were just the most aggresgious cases of many class accusations that have been leveled at me in my career. Most of the time i , like the officers I mentioned earlier, don’t have the have time to mess with it and once the department dismiises the complainant I just move on. So I don’t even follow my own advice all the time.

    As for the policy idea. Kinda. You are trying to desperate the officer from the department at that point. The officer is going to try and tie himself to the department and policy. There have been many instances where departments have gotten in trouble in these types of instances because they sometimes try to sneak around things by not setting a policy in case where there clearly should be. A smaller department I used to work for did that. Had a policy Manuel that looked like a pamphlet when I started there in the think that “if its not in policy…we can’t get in trouble for it” and that has been proven to not be the case. By the chance of you seperating the officer from his department are small, unless he did something very unusual.
    And remember…you are opening yourself to countersuit if you lose and can’t prove what you say. And I know lots of cases where that has happened and I always recommend officers “sue you back”.

    Its is one of the many reasons or major tort reform. A great place to start is a “loser pays” system. Many more case pswould most likely get tried (instead of just settled) as I (and the city) can save lots of money if we win and you have to pay all of the costs including the attorneys times and depossions such. Real cases wouldn’t be effected at all as there would still be merit….but the frivolous actions wouukd pretty guickly stop.

  • t.

    Oh BTW, neither of the cases I sued for was in a “countersuit” situation. They where both just false allegations / complaints against me .

  • BluEyeDevil

    T.,
    AGREED ABOUT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. VERY COMPLEX ISSUE IF YOU BREAK IT DOWN TO IT’S CORE. THE LAWSUITS ARE A BIG PROBLEM BUT THEN AGAIN SO IS POLICE MISCONDUCT. THIS IS THE CONUNDRUM WE FACE AS A SOCIETY. SO WHAT DO YOU DO. WHEN IT IS BROKEN YOU FIX IT TO BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE. MAYBE A NEW APPROACH TO THIS ISSUE CAN CHANGE THE ATTITUDES TOWARD EACH OTHER. ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT; I DISAGREE TOTALLY. TWO STATEMENTS BEING MADE 1. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, 2. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. THE FIRST CLEARLY REFERS TO THE MILITIA AS EVERY ABLE BODY MAN TO COME TO THE DEFENSE OF THE STATE, THE SECOND REFERS TO THE PEOPLE, YOU AND I AND EVERYONE, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND THAT IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. I SEE NO OTHER WAY TO INTERPRET ITS MEANING.

  • BluEyeDevil

    HEY COMMON THANKS FOR YOUR GENEROUS CONTRIBUTION AS WELL. I’M SURE YOU LOVE GETTING NEW MURDER MACHINES AT THE COST OF THE TAXPAYER. HOPEFULLY WE GET TO USE THEM AGAINST YOU REAL SOON.

    HOW’S MOM?

  • Common Sense

    @devil

    Soaking in epson salts…ha ha ha. And no, no ‘murder machines’ needed, have plenty.

    @chris the mooch

    yes, as a property owner, I pay taxes. You, as a ‘renter’ of your grandparent’s basement, however do not, unless you count the 33 cents added to your Dominos pizza purchase as ‘taxes’ towards public safety.

  • Common Sense

    Again, I tend to agree with devil. However the hype of confiscation is just that, hype.

    The core issue is the interpretation with the 2nd. Yes, we all know how it reads and everyone has their own take on it. But in the same break, look at the 4th, or the 5th, even the 8th. All Amendments have limits. Those limits are set forth by the USSC, not the citizen.

    In various states you are free to own dual belt-fed MG42s, with proper licenses. I personally see no information/reason that a ban on AW would have any affect on the murder rate, but again, its highly unlikely it will be my decision alone.

    You get what you elect.

    In NYC, there’s been a ban on hi-cap mags, and AW since 1994. No challenges to the USSC. Call it State’s Rights. You can make the same comparison with ‘bear arms’ to abortions – they are legal, as stated by the USSC, but each state can regulate them. Same with the 2nd. You can have a AR/AK, but the state will and can regulate them.

    Even if there is a challenge to the USSC, you will always have the right, under the individual states to bear arms (with regulations).

  • BluEyeDevil

    COMMON,
    WHY ARE YOU SUCH A DICK WHEN WE AGREE ON SO MUCH……….LOL

  • Common Sense

    @t

    have you noticed, since fakewood is back, glenn vanished. Shocker.

  • mobooz

    re: Paying taxes: I don’t do it myself. There are plenty of legal loopholes that let me live where and how I like without paying for the right do do so. Plus, every dollar I don’t pay in is another dollar some cop doesn’t get paid to enforce the laws I don’t like enforced. It leaves me with plenty of money to pay toward services that I do want, like personal protection, and public education and welfare. What RadicalDude said about lawyers also goes for tax accountants: you don’t need one. All tax codes are publicly available–if you think you can’t find ways to limit how much of your money goes to policing, then you’re just not trying.

  • courtofpublicopinion

    mandatory malpractice insurance would be a practical solution i would support this and am sure a lot of other citizens would also if it were put up for vote.

  • t.

    Court: That’s an interesting idea. Bet there would be bunches of contersuits from the insurance companies

  • courtofpublicopinion

    lol t yea but it would give them something to do with their time besides counting all that money they take in

  • Wicked Vet

    I agree cops should have malpractice insurance just like doctors. They need to start paying and being accountable for their own mistakes.

  • http://www.zipcodelimo.com/ limo service

    what it is?, from Hidden Hills, California I want to tell you, I loved this post. However, it is strange how I ended up on your blog post. I searched for New York limousine tour on Google and ended up on your website. I must say I do like your site and will check back soon. But I need to find the limo I was originally looking for first. Have a fantastic day! cheerio.

  • John

    The cop was right. Native Americans are very bad news. If a cop shot him it is because he deserved it badly. Since you don’t live around Native American Indians. You probably wouldn’t know.