Plausibly Undeniable
The criticism here is aimed at powers given police, not police officers themselves.
But it’s awesome. Scary awesome.
Civil asset forfeiture is just the tip of the iceberg; filming a cop in a public place is a crime in most places, they can bust you for drinking in a bar, and cops have the right to steal your identity and use it in undercover operations.
Land o’ the free, baby.
Here’s your sample confession form. Check all that apply, submit so you can be re-educated.
I, [STATE YOUR NAME], denounce myself for being a thought criminal and surrender into the hands of progressive justice at flag@whitehouse.gov. My crimes include:
[ ] In a private conversation with my spousal unit I expressed doubts about the appropriateness of a one-party rule.
[ ] I was hesitant in repeating the party directive: American health care is worse than any other western democracy.
[ ] At the time of this year’s inauguration I hesitated to grovel at the feet of the Supreme Leader Obama.
[ ] I worried that Leader is trying to take too much power.
[ ] I once worried that “getting past bipartisanship” might mean more than just the expected re-education camps.
[ ] I worried that there might be more in the ObamaCare bill than I was told.
[ ] I had a moment’s doubt about whether it’s appropriate for the arts to become a tool of state propaganda.
I confess to my crimes and ask the mercy of the state and Leader.
Bud Kennedy over at the Startlegram refers to my buddy Radley Balko’s research at Reason Magazine to point out — hey, guess what, places where there are more illegal immigrants have less violent crime.
Exhibit A: El Paso.
The West Texas twin city to drug-riddled Juarez is about one-fourth foreign-born. Yet it’s usually ranked as the nation’s No. 2 or No. 3 safest city.
(San Antonio is No. 9. Fort Worth is No. 10.)
“It just always seemed remarkable to me that El Paso has such a low crime rate,” said Radley Balko, a Reason senior editor and writer on law enforcement and criminal-justice issues.
“All the academic evidence concludes that immigrants are much less prone to violence than the native population.”
Radley’s full piece here.
More on crime and immigration here.
Love the Kunkle. So what I’m about to say is with all due respect to the points he articulated for Unfair Park.
Dallas doesn’t need a daytime curfew for juveniles. And there are five reasons.
1) It. Is. Not. Necessary. Police already have the power to stop, detain, and deliver truants back to schools. We don’t need to criminalize truancy, and we don’t need to stack $500 fines that will fall disproportionately on the people who can’t afford them, just adding to their cycle of poverty and being in dutch with the law. (Yeah, I know, I’m not supposed to care much about the poor — smell like old milk and they don’t buy ads — but I certainly do care when it’s government piling on them.)
2) We are given a list of “defenses” to the fine — With permission of the student’s school subject to confirmation, medical excuse subject to confirmation, etc. Key words there are “subject to confirmation.” Meaning the police will be able to detain the kid (or an adult who looks young), issue the citation, and put people through the headache of the legal process even when they shouldn’t be. As a negative bonus, this sends a great message to kids — you are not a citizen, but a subject. Which brings me to…
3) Children are not the property of the city of Dallas, the school district, Texas, or the United States. The first two full sentences I taught my daughter were “I am not the property of the state. My life is my own.” (Ask my wife; I ain’t kidding you.) Kids are wards of their parents, in whose trust their rights are placed until they are of legal age.
4) This is a feel-good, do-nothing-but-harass-people initiative backed by clueless elected officials who want to look like they’re doing something.
5) Show of hands — who thinks this $500 fine part has nothing to do with the city’s $100 million budget deficit? Anyone? Anyone?