A brief history of the “law enforcement bill of rights,” pushed for by police unions and adopted in many states beginning in Maryland in 1972, which entrenches problem cops who have not actually been found guilty of a felony [Mike Riggs, Reason]
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Cato Institute
Individual liberty, free markets, and peace: the world's premier libertarian think tank. Publishes Cato at Liberty, where I blog on contemporary policy issues.
Schools for Misrule
Get your copy today! My new book tackles the question of why so many bad ideas come from the law schools. "Cutting-edge commentary, hard-hitting, witty, astute." -- Publisher's Weekly. "Excellent... A fine dissection of these strangely powerful institutions" -- Wall Street Journal.
{ 2 comments }
The woman who got the boot to the head did get reasonable payback for her actions. Cops do have to abide by the law, but everyone, even cops, deserves some slack when unreasonably provoked.
The other cases are less forgivable.
“reasonable payback”? So since this woman (supposedly a criminal) lashes out at an officer, as criminals tend to do, the officer should be allowed to stoop to her level and retaliate against her?
“…everyone…deserves some slack when unreasonably provoked”? Common sense would tell you that if you have to handcuff a person, you should be on guard against that person lashing out at you in some way, not to mention that obviously a seated and handcuffed person doesn’t present much of a threat. The officer could have taken one step backward and solved the problem. If a person can’t control his emotions better than that he should have chosen a different career.
Comments on this entry are closed.