Also, I'd say all but the last of my examples are far more likely to happen than casually stumbling onto a cop in the act of rape.

One of these things not like the other.

...having already shot a teller to make the point that he is serious.

Better?

I think the chances of the blue curtain of silence happening after a banks rights are violated is near 0%. Sure they shot a black guy 27 times for getting his wallet out of his back pocket, not guilty ladies and gentlemen of the jury. They rob a bank, you can be sure that cop is going under the prison.

How did we get to Omerta? This started as posing examples of citizens being justified in stopping police from committing crimes and/or abusing their power.

From MSNBC...

I guess my point was that 2 of those things (1 & 4) are crimes against victims happen semi-frequently and the cops always line up together and testify that Bob's a good dood and shooting that guy 13 times was an honest mistake.

In 2 however, there is a very good reason why the rogue cop will be punished. The people who pay to elect the sheriff will certainly pay to have someone else elected if someone was allowed to get away with robbing a bank. Therefore you cannot expect police to keep quiet.

3 & 5 are whatever, and if there is a preponderance of evidence, I'm sure the cop would probably go to jail.

I guess I feel as though there is a very different burden of proof for police that are acting against dirty hippies or w/e. It seems pretty absurd to me that such crimes against citizens are not enforced when you can be pretty sure that mere property crimes versus rich would be unlikely to go without swift punishment. Pretty much the definition of inequity.

I'm sure some of this is a bit twisted by perceptions of recent events with police, but I have personally seen quite a bit of profiling. I just don't trust our benevolent overlords. And they don't deserve it at this point.

HAHAHA, yeah, what MD said.

my brother is home for the holiday, he's spent the last 2 weeks at occupy philly doing libertarian outreach.

says it's pretty much a joke. the libertarians are the only ones organized at all, seems like the rest of them are just there as an excuse.

libertarians built a "warming room" (like, out of wood, with floors, and everything) where they give out tea and stuff like that to the occupiers to keep them warm, but they have to man it 24/7 because when they didn't the occupiers vandalized it.

libertarians also donated 3 tons of food to the occupiers.

he explained an interesting situation which came up where the occupiers held a general assembly to vote on whether to move to the other side of the street ........... the libertarians asked "why do you need to vote, can't the ones who want to move just go to the other side of the street and the ones who don't just stay here?" of course, after the vote, those who voted not to move just stayed where they were lolololol

also, due to the cold weather (i guess), he'd estimated about 2/3rds of the occupiers left, leaving their tents up for the next occupier who may come along...of course, the tents were instead filled by Philly's homeless.

Can I throw a tantrum about how you should keep your libertarian ramblings to the many libertarian threads?

relevant post though, no?

This isn't a libertarian thread?

I spent no time whatsoever imagining nor describing a police rape scenario.

umm it's about the occupy protests so no, you can stfu lowkey

i mean, are we only allowed to talk about the parts of the Occupy movement that are accomplishing nothing and pretend its positive, itt?

those weren't libertarian ramblings, they were observations regarding the current status of Occupy Philly from a libertarian who happens to have spent the last 2 weeks with the protesters.

if you were looking for the OWS circle jerk thread, it's on the front page somewhere.