1,900 people died while being arrested in 2015. Two-thirds were intentionally killed.

a reply to: Edumakated

Uh there isn't an epidemic but it's much higher than 25. That surely wasn't an educated guess.

If you don't think law enforcement can attract scumbags you have your head in the sand. It may be a small statistical number but it much higher than 25.

The things cops are asked to do with the lack of training and lack of weekly training required to stay sharp is rediculous.

Cops and teachers need more money and also to be scrutinized more when they suck.

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: loam

I'm reminded of a case several years ago here in central Texas that made the national news. An elderly grandmother of, I believe 72 years old was pulled over for a simple traffic violation. Rather than complying with the office, she argued to the point that she was to be arrested rather than simply be given a ticket. Then it escalated into a resisting arrest charge which resulted in her being tazed to the ground.

I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which it's justified for a police officer to taze a 72 year old grandmother, no matter how beligerent she is, unless she has a weapon. Assuming an average 72-year-old physically, a taze could give her a heart attack.

Some elderly people become belligerent due to senility. My 90 year old father is forever threatening to beat someone's arse. If a cop tazed him, my old man would die.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: loam

I'm reminded of a case several years ago here in central Texas that made the national news. An elderly grandmother of, I believe 72 years old was pulled over for a simple traffic violation. Rather than complying with the office, she argued to the point that she was to be arrested rather than simply be given a ticket. Then it escalated into a resisting arrest charge which resulted in her being tazed to the ground.

I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which it's justified for a police officer to taze a 72 year old grandmother, no matter how beligerent she is, unless she has a weapon. Assuming an average 72-year-old physically, a taze could give her a heart attack.

Some elderly people become belligerent due to senility. My 90 year old father is forever threatening to beat someone's arse. If a cop tazed him, my old man would die.

If a cop can not restrain a 72 year old physically they should be fired on the spot.

At 40 I still train judo and bjj three times a week. Not even a cop. I have many officer friends and coach wrestling with one. The confidence you emit from knowing you can restrain people or defend yourself usually gives you the ability to let stuff roll off as well as signal a calm confidence many people find disturbing.

I roll with adults in a controlled environment weekly in the gym and it gets out any machismo in a healthy way. I have had people throw nasty insults me as a bouncer and never felt the need to retaliate. I certainly have had to restrain people acting up but not preemptive.

Cops need to train weekly in grappling and pressure marksmanship. They will feel a lot less helpless when a 72 year old lady acts up. And if it wasn't they were helpless and it was retaliation for being disrespected they should be fired and charged.

originally posted by: loam
Those numbers are ridiculous.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: LifeMode

Several hundred million people have not been in police custody in a 12 month period.

Not good at math, eh? You must be terrible at assessing risk in your life.

Then let's be good at math, then, since it's all right there in your quoted source in the OP:

1900 people died--just for the sake of your wonderment concerning 'just how off those numbers really are,' let's double that amount to 3,800 people.

In 2015, according to the FBI's release of information:

The FBI estimated that law enforcement agencies nationwide made 10.8 million arrests, excluding traffic violations, in 2015.

So, since I'm pretty good at math, and this is a simple thing to figure out, here, let's see what percentage of those arrests ended in a death: (3,800 / 10,800,000) x 100 = 0.035%

Yes, look at that for a second and ponder that. Thirty-five-one-hundredths of one percent of all estimated arrests in the year 2015 ended in a death, and that's considering that I doubled the amount of deaths to appease your concern about how far off those numbers are, even though the original estimate was already increased by 12% to accommodate non-matching results from the summer months of arrests.

Therefore, when examining your claim that "these numbers [of deaths] are ridiculous," it seems that your claim in and of itself is ridiculous. And then, when you take into account that the number of deaths used in these stats include nearly 30% of which being defined as suicides or accidents (most likely concerning the numbers of deaths that occurred in holding facilities, as that would be where most suicides [18% of the total] and accidents [11% of the total] would seem to occur), you start getting even lower and lower of the percentage of arrests being at the intentional end of an officer's bullet (or other weapons, to include tasers, sticks, vehicles, hands/feet, etc.). And then even considering that the homicides (64% of the total) don't differentiate between inmate-on-inmate deaths, or justified shootings by police officers, then you even get a much lower number of inappropriate deaths while being in the custody of law enforcement. Oh, and according to the FBI source (and quote) that I provided, the arrest total of 10.8-million exclude traffic-stop arrests, which we KNOW have resulted in civilian deaths (and LEO deaths), so that would even reduce the percentage even more if those numbers were included.

So, "ridiculous" numbers...really? I think that things are working out pretty well, overall, in a nation where the ignorant narrative is that we are full of blood-thirsty LEOs who disregard the wellbeing of citizens and just fire at will whenever it suits them.

Give me a damn break...you must be terrible at assessing risk in your life.

I'm not dismissing, in any way, the officers that have added to this total illegally and without justification, but to imply that we have a major problem here in the U.S. concerning people who die at the hands of LEOs or just while in custody is blatant hyperbole.

Cops need to train weekly in grappling and pressure marksmanship. They will feel a lot less helpless when a 72 year old lady acts up. And if it wasn't they were helpless and it was retaliation for being disrespected they should be fired and charged.

I agree with this.

Unfortunately, all too often their first instinct is to reach for a weapon. Not every threat requires one.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: loam

I really don't understand how we don't have mandatory reporting to the federal government of deaths of people in encounters with law enforcement, in law enforcement custody, etc.

Because local law enforcement isn't a federal entity, and therefore, unless the DOJ wants to spread out its budget to pay for the additional bodies and time that it would take to track and report this stuff (including updating systems and installing mandatory programming and the maintenance of both), it's an unfair burden to place on local law enforcement offices, and IMO, an unnecessary burden. Mandating that type of thing should be left up to local or state governments--nothing in the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the right (or burden) to oversee/manage non-federal law enforcement.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Uh,...

Some issues with your statements.

One police keeping there own records? You know what saudi Arabia barely has any rape stats at all. Why? It's not reported for cultural reasons.
Sweden which has a broad definition of rape has a lot of it. Does this mean there is less or more rape than saudi arabia?

Who knows because the stats are based on definitions of crime.

Another thing cops are treated as untouchables and have far greater immunity than they should. You taser a 72 year old woman without a weapon you should be fired and possibly charged.

I will admit there is a far greater burden on the legislators forcing cops to do this stuff and not allocating enough resources for their training.

I think a few less armored vehicles and more weekly training is better.

All in all I am all about paying cops better and supporting the good ones, and firing the bad cops. The times of using low iq aptitude testing should be gone. And yes this a real thing. State troopers in my home state of Texas have sued the dept for scoring to high on the tests.

A guy like the one in Florida who shot the health worker taking care of the autistic man, that should be a big deal and fire and publicly humiliate that situation. Not only was he trigger happy he shot the wrong guy with a damn rifle.

Cops do get in trouble I have a family member who is an assistant AG and he is in charge of state troopers. They do dumb stuff constantly and it stays in the dept.

Bt the way how do all these drugs end up on the streets. You don't think cops are involved in bribes? How about the police forces that get busted laundering money for dealers? Wonder how many more would be discovered if they actively investigated high drug areas.

a reply to: Aliensun

I'm reminded of a case several years ago here in central Texas that made the national news. An elderly grandmother of, I believe 72 years old was pulled over for a simple traffic violation. Rather than complying with the office, she argued to the point that she was to be arrested rather than simply be given a ticket. Then it escalated into a resisting arrest charge which resulted in her being tazed to the ground. She didn't die, and she will probably complain to this day that she was in the right and the the officer was wrong in the way she was treated.

Do you mean this lady?



I probably would too. Actually, no, I'd be screaming from the rooftops! A perfect example of over-policing which is condoned by the department. No good can come of criminalizing anyone who refuses to "comply" when they are posing no threat to anyone else. And this woman was no threat to anyone -- especially the cop. She pulled away from him and was trying to walk away when he tased her.

On the plus side -- for her, but not for the taxpayer footing the bill:

Tasered Texas grandma settles for $40,000

a reply to: Greggers

I know that I'm arguing semantics, here, but hands and feet and everything else used to subdue someone become weapons. If you punch someone, you are using your hand as a weapon. If you repeatedly slam someone's head into concrete, you are using the concrete as a weapon. All instances like that make someone an "armed" individual.

My point being is that most, if not all, threats do require a weapon, just not always a firearm or a taser, I suppose. But I think in the extreme (and statistically negligible) instance of a resisting 72-year-old lady, a taser was an extreme use of force, but no matter how she was subdued, there would be people complaining about it because she was 72 years old, forgetting that she should be old enough to know better than to act like that and put the LEO in the position to have to subdue her in the first place.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Edumakated

Uh there isn't an epidemic but it's much higher than 25. That surely wasn't an educated guess.

If you don't think law enforcement can attract scumbags you have your head in the sand. It may be a small statistical number but it much higher than 25.

The things cops are asked to do with the lack of training and lack of weekly training required to stay sharp is rediculous.

Cops and teachers need more money and also to be scrutinized more when they suck.

Where did I make an argument that there aren't crooked cops?

I stand by my assessment that it is probably less than 25 incidents of LEOs wantonly killing someone in custody or during arrest. Even then you still have an issue with if victims are knowingly or unknowingly escalating the incident resulting in their own death.

The one commonality you typically find in most of these cases is resisting arrest. Once you start resisting arrest, things get escalated and can result in a cop believing their own life may be in danger. Once that occurs, the likelihood of being shot/killed increases dramatically.

What I do agree with is that cops are becoming too fearful and that many may be too jumpy. At the same time, we also have a situation where a large percentage of the population has zero respect for authority and can be overly belligerent.

I try not to judge police in these situations because it isn't my life that is on the line.

A lot of these issues would not exist if people would just STFU and do as the LEO is asking. If you feel you don't deserve the ticket, arrest, or whatever, then that is understandable. However, there is a time and place for everything and arguing with an LEO on the side of the street is not going to win you any prizes. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SlapMonkey


One police keeping there own records? You know what saudi Arabia barely has any rape stats at all. Why? It's not reported for cultural reasons.
Sweden which has a broad definition of rape has a lot of it. Does this mean there is less or more rape than saudi arabia?

Who knows because the stats are based on definitions of crime.

Yes, what is a crime in one country may not necessarily be a crime in another. Furthermore, what may be a crime in one municipal or state jurisdiction of the United States may not be a crime in another, or may have different elements that need to be met to be a crime, or whatever the case may be.

You're not making a point that really matters to my comment--if you're trying to say that the federal government should take over defining crimes and then take over reporting statistics of all municipal, county, and state criminal activity, then you are basically arguing for federal control over all police forces and crime statutes. I can't say that this is a grand idea.

So, care to elaborate on your point number one to tell me how it is relevant in this discussion? Who else is going to report police statistics other than the police? The VFW? The Boy Scouts? The state comptroller office?

Another thing cops are treated as untouchables and have far greater immunity than they should. You taser a 72 year old woman without a weapon you should be fired and possibly charged.

This is an ignorant comment that fails to take into account any and all grey areas that occur during an incident like this.

This is probably why you are not (I assume) an elected official in charge of law enforcement policy. It's easy for people on the outside to make claims about what "should be," but that doesn't mean that your speculation is appropriate for every situation.

I will admit there is a far greater burden on the legislators forcing cops to do this stuff and not allocating enough resources for their training.

I think a few less armored vehicles and more weekly training is better.

Agreed. Hell, I'd even be happy with semi-monthly training for starters, but weekly would definitely be the best. I think that bonuses and incentives should exist that reward officers who undergo appropriate training outside of the walls of the police department on their own dime and time, too. But I think that it should all be voluntary, but if you do not take your job seriously enough to undergo such training, this should also be able to be used against you during reviews and be a factor in weeding out those who are not serious about their jobs. There definitely needs to be an emphasis on empty-hand defensive techniques against weapons, because having even just minimal confidence in one's ability to approach a situation without the first though being "I may have to fire my weapon" would go a long way.

Cops do get in trouble I have a family member who is an assistant AG and he is in charge of state troopers. They do dumb stuff constantly and it stays in the dept.

Yes--everyone does dumb stuff occasionally, and not all of it deserves to or need be paraded in the public eye. It's when the major things start getting swept under the rug that there is a problem.

I used to assist in prosecuting Soldiers when I served in the Army--from drafting charge sheets, to aiding in conducting witness interviews, to pre-trial confinement hearings, to Article 32(b) hearings (grand-jury type hearings), and all of the things in between and before and after. I understand that there are some people in the position of authority (with access to guns) who do stupid things--and, often, abhorrent things--but that doesn't mean that it is the majority of them.

Bt the way how do all these drugs end up on the streets. You don't think cops are involved in bribes? How about the police forces that get busted laundering money for dealers? Wonder how many more would be discovered if they actively investigated high drug areas.

This is not a discussion in line with my comments or the OP's intent, so I'll save comments on that for another thread.

a reply to: Boadicea

Well, considering that resisting arrest, which is what she was doing, is a third-degree felony in the State of Texas, and that the officer gave her plenty of chances concerning the if/then scenario of resisting or getting tazed, and then she tried twice to get back to her vehicle which is an absolute red flag for any officer, I have no problems with his actions.

The fact that she got $40k out of the incident if damn ridiculous--it's a payoff to try to reduce the bad PR from the emotional people who can't see the actions of the woman through the fact that she's a 72-year-old.

And you bet that I'd be saying the same thing if that was my grandma, or wife, or mother, or child. Act like a damn fool in front of a relatively patient LEO and keep pushing the limits, you'll see where the patience ends. I have to take that approach with my 13-year-old son a lot, so to all the grandmas reading this, don't act like a 13-year-old child.

Texas Penal Code § 38.03. Resisting Arrest, Search, or Transportation - See more at: codes.findlaw.com...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

There should be oversight that doesn't come from the police dept or AG. It should be seperate state/local review board of contentious cases that report to the doj.

Why should training for a job be considered optional? That is total bull crap. You can't put people in public with weapons and authority that can endanger the public.

My assistant wrestling coach is a police Sgt. He thinks cops are woefully under trained. It's obvious if your obese you can't do your job, the unions protect these people even from superiors who want to get rid of them.

We actually my assistant coach and I, take part in teaching police dept. We use stun knives and work on a lot of situations that can occur. The majority of the cops are completely unprepared for making decisions and sizing up threats. Another thing I have done for years is three gun races at my local range. I also talk with the good cops there. Trust me they know there is a problem and they don't want to work with inept cops the union protects either.

By cops doing dumb things I meant illegal things. Things anyone not a cop would never get away with like drunk driving, endangering the public, having sex with mistresses while on duty and missed important calls etc.

You don't seem to grasp the reality out there. Cops are not teamed to handle the stress properly of their job.

6 months ago at a club a was hit in the face with a bottle as a bouncer (where I work with off duty cops as well) I restrained the coked up dude and sued him when it was over. What I didn't do was break his arm even though I could have and possibly wanted to.

Cops don't get a pass for not being able to control themselves. They also don't deserve all the blame. If you puposely hire guys with low IQ's they aren't going to be great at making clutch decisions. I certainly blame hiring, unions, and politicians more than them. However they don't get a pass just because the job is hard.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, considering that resisting arrest, which is what she was doing, is a third-degree felony in the State of Texas, and that the officer gave her plenty of chances concerning the if/then scenario of resisting or getting tazed, and then she tried twice to get back to her vehicle which is an absolute red flag for any officer, I have no problems with his actions.

The fact that she got $40k out of the incident if damn ridiculous--it's a payoff to try to reduce the bad PR from the emotional people who can't see the actions of the woman through the fact that she's a 72-year-old.

And you bet that I'd be saying the same thing if that was my grandma, or wife, or mother, or child. Act like a damn fool in front of a relatively patient LEO and keep pushing the limits, you'll see where the patience ends. I have to take that approach with my 13-year-old son a lot, so to all the grandmas reading this, don't act like a 13-year-old child.

Texas Penal Code § 38.03. Resisting Arrest, Search, or Transportation - See more at: codes.findlaw.com...

You have a very dangerous point of view if you believe a police officer should taser a 72 year old lady "resisting arrest". Like I said the laws themselves are usually the problem and police training tactics reflect those.

Within the social contract if you believe authority should have that kind of power without limit or reason your dangerous to liberty.

There is no way a cop should be able to use a weapon against somebody they can handle with submissions or a fine.

A cop should be required to de escalate situations. They were never designed to be an ultimate authority figure until recently.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, considering that resisting arrest, which is what she was doing, is a third-degree felony in the State of Texas, and that the officer gave her plenty of chances concerning the if/then scenario of resisting or getting tazed, and then she tried twice to get back to her vehicle which is an absolute red flag for any officer, I have no problems with his actions.

The fact that she got $40k out of the incident if damn ridiculous--it's a payoff to try to reduce the bad PR from the emotional people who can't see the actions of the woman through the fact that she's a 72-year-old.

And you bet that I'd be saying the same thing if that was my grandma, or wife, or mother, or child. Act like a damn fool in front of a relatively patient LEO and keep pushing the limits, you'll see where the patience ends. I have to take that approach with my 13-year-old son a lot, so to all the grandmas reading this, don't act like a 13-year-old child.

Texas Penal Code § 38.03. Resisting Arrest, Search, or Transportation - See more at: codes.findlaw.com...

You have a very dangerous point of view if you believe a police officer should taser a 72 year old lady "resisting arrest". Like I said the laws themselves are usually the problem and police training tactics reflect those.

Within the social contract if you believe authority should have that kind of power without limit or reason your dangerous to liberty.

There is no way a cop should be able to use a weapon against somebody they can handle with submissions or a fine.

A cop should be required to de escalate situations. They were never designed to be an ultimate authority figure until recently.

Your assumption is that a 72 year old woman cannot be dangerous. A 72 year old woman can easily pull a firearm and use it. On the flip side, a 13 year old boy can also do the same.

LEOs have to judge each interaction in their totality.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, considering that resisting arrest, which is what she was doing, is a third-degree felony in the State of Texas, and that the officer gave her plenty of chances concerning the if/then scenario of resisting or getting tazed, and then she tried twice to get back to her vehicle which is an absolute red flag for any officer, I have no problems with his actions.

The fact that she got $40k out of the incident if damn ridiculous--it's a payoff to try to reduce the bad PR from the emotional people who can't see the actions of the woman through the fact that she's a 72-year-old.

And you bet that I'd be saying the same thing if that was my grandma, or wife, or mother, or child. Act like a damn fool in front of a relatively patient LEO and keep pushing the limits, you'll see where the patience ends. I have to take that approach with my 13-year-old son a lot, so to all the grandmas reading this, don't act like a 13-year-old child.

Texas Penal Code § 38.03. Resisting Arrest, Search, or Transportation - See more at: codes.findlaw.com...

You have a very dangerous point of view if you believe a police officer should taser a 72 year old lady "resisting arrest". Like I said the laws themselves are usually the problem and police training tactics reflect those.

Within the social contract if you believe authority should have that kind of power without limit or reason your dangerous to liberty.

There is no way a cop should be able to use a weapon against somebody they can handle with submissions or a fine.

A cop should be required to de escalate situations. They were never designed to be an ultimate authority figure until recently.

Your assumption is that a 72 year old woman cannot be dangerous. A 72 year old woman can easily pull a firearm and use it. On the flip side, a 13 year old boy can also do the same.

LEOs have to judge each interaction in their totality.

You make a point but, that is assuming they have the training to do that. Not every dept does.

Do you think there should obese out of shape cops? Have you ever seen one?

Do you honestly think the cops that do their jobs, do everything right, work out and stay sharp want to work with these people.

Like I said even within the dept the unions make it hard to get rid of guys and laws over protect them with immunity.

It's very funny that the two of you are argueing against something that would protect the cops themselves as well as increase their pay.

Oh well

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, considering that resisting arrest, which is what she was doing, is a third-degree felony in the State of Texas, and that the officer gave her plenty of chances concerning the if/then scenario of resisting or getting tazed, and then she tried twice to get back to her vehicle which is an absolute red flag for any officer, I have no problems with his actions.

Okay. And I do have problems with his actions. Though I will preface this by saying that I do understand this is what the officer is expected to do. And that's the real problem.

The officer had no reason to believe she was a threat to anyone -- including himself. Further, she was not violating anyone's inalienable rights, and therefore there was no just cause to violate her inalienable rights. Any law whose enforcement violates a person's inalienable rights for any reason other than violating another person's rights is a bad law. Including any law that makes resisting arrest or failure to comply the sole crime committed....

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, considering that resisting arrest, which is what she was doing, is a third-degree felony in the State of Texas, and that the officer gave her plenty of chances concerning the if/then scenario of resisting or getting tazed, and then she tried twice to get back to her vehicle which is an absolute red flag for any officer, I have no problems with his actions.

Okay. And I do have problems with his actions. Though I will preface this by saying that I do understand this is what the officer is expected to do. And that's the real problem.

The officer had no reason to believe she was a threat to anyone -- including himself. Further, she was not violating anyone's inalienable rights, and therefore there was no just cause to violate her inalienable rights. Any law whose enforcement violates a person's inalienable rights for any reason other than violating another person's rights is a bad law. Including any law that makes resisting arrest or failure to comply the sole crime committed....

Ding ding ding!

Plenty of Leo's believe this and act accordingly, for some reason folks like to protect the bad applles because cops can do no wrong.

Would also love to know how these bad apple defenders can explain purposely higher in low iq?
www.mintpressnews.com...

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Edumakated

Uh there isn't an epidemic but it's much higher than 25. That surely wasn't an educated guess.

If you don't think law enforcement can attract scumbags you have your head in the sand. It may be a small statistical number but it much higher than 25.

The things cops are asked to do with the lack of training and lack of weekly training required to stay sharp is rediculous.

Cops and teachers need more money and also to be scrutinized more when they suck.

Where did I make an argument that there aren't crooked cops?

I stand by my assessment that it is probably less than 25 incidents of LEOs wantonly killing someone in custody or during arrest. Even then you still have an issue with if victims are knowingly or unknowingly escalating the incident resulting in their own death.

The one commonality you typically find in most of these cases is resisting arrest. Once you start resisting arrest, things get escalated and can result in a cop believing their own life may be in danger. Once that occurs, the likelihood of being shot/killed increases dramatically.

What I do agree with is that cops are becoming too fearful and that many may be too jumpy. At the same time, we also have a situation where a large percentage of the population has zero respect for authority and can be overly belligerent.

I try not to judge police in these situations because it isn't my life that is on the line.

A lot of these issues would not exist if people would just STFU and do as the LEO is asking. If you feel you don't deserve the ticket, arrest, or whatever, then that is understandable. However, there is a time and place for everything and arguing with an LEO on the side of the street is not going to win you any prizes. Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

Unfortunately arguing with Leo in a courtroom doesn't work out too well either -- the problem is the faith in LEO is WAY too high. Officers are regular people, and regular people are bitter/vindictive/lie all to protect their image/belief. I've been arrested 6 times in my life and I'm only 30, and out of those 6, the state prosecutor had to throw out 5 of them, and stuck me with 2 misdemeanors that never actually happened. Like -- not one word of truth was reported by the police, and in fact -- the police report, I will gladly scan in so you can read it -- contradicts itself.

Page 1 says I complied with field sobriety tests and passed them, there was no odor of alcohol, and my coordination was NOT impaired.

Page 2 says I was drunk, so drunk, that I enveloped the entire squad car in a smell of booze.

I had my license forcibly removed on the scene for "failing to blow." I never even had a drop of alcohol and completely complied with the sobriety tests, even offered my blood and urine too -- yet lost my license right there at the scene because one officer lied and said I refused a breath test.

They did this so they could stick me with the "Wreckless Driving" charge, because if a cop says you are drunk, but then they don't record your Blood Aclohol -- but lie and say it's because you refused -- there is literally zero way to fight that.

Victim of corrupt cops 6 times in my life. Moved the # out of Lee county.

a reply to: SRPrime

Here come the excuses and disbelief.

People are really ignorant when they think a job that allows deadly force and authority over others shouldn't be scrutinized with a magnifiied glass.

The potential for abuse and abusive personalities is unquestionably high.

The most strange part about this debate is these are the same people against socialism, yet willingly explain away excessive authority over liberty.