What's the right answer regarding Police Violence?

[tomcat]

Well, expecting them to "take the risk of personal safety" Is one thing, but I would never expect them to let someone take the first shot before responding.

I agree with "better psychological screening, better training in unarmed combat and higher IQ", but they have to be able to defend themselves and if they are punching, kicking or shooting... someone could get killed. Mistakes are going to happen, that is just an unfortunate fact of life.

I am a bit older than you, and I have had to call the police more than a few times too. Mostly there was nothing they could do after a theft or burglary but they have also been helpful. I would not hesitate to call the police again if I needed them.

I have also been hassled by police officers, but it was always because I was doing something stupid, suspicious or illegal. They aren't always nice and friendly in such circumstances, as they are trained to be aggressive and take command of situations. I also found that they always gave me a hard look when I had long hair... as did all the store owners.

Didn't your parents have "the talk" with you? Be respectful, Keep your hands in plain sight at all times and don't make any quick moves, etc... You'll be fine.

Tom

Tom, I understand that there are extreme examples in both our statements. But the current MO of thepolice seems to be “shoot first and ask questions later”. ...

[podfish]

Well, expecting them to "take the risk of personal safety" Is one thing, but I would never expect them to let someone take the first shot before responding.
...Didn't your parents have "the talk" with you? Be respectful, Keep your hands in plain sight at all times and don't make any quick moves, etc... You'll be fine. Tom

fine, I agree it's silly to have hard & fast "no shoot till they shoot" rules. The point of agreement should be that we've gone overboard in allowing extreme lethal force before the nature of the threat is well established. I don't care to debate whether eight shots is too many, but one or two would have been good.

However, we don't get to pick a happy land where no-one is going to be hurt if we just set correct policies. There will be errors; under current policy those errors are more likely to result in dead civilians than in dead officers. Both are tragedies, I think that's not in question. This is not to suggest we shouldn't pursue policies that result in fewer situations where deadly force is used. But it seems that in Sonoma, and in the country as a whole, the balance is off and too many civilians end up dead.

Many seem to feel that assigning some blame to the dead civilian helps justify a policy that increases the officer's safety, which is why so many of these debates include minute examination of the behavior of the deceased. Others look for evidence of some wrongdoing on the officer's part, as if it were possible to avoid any police wrongdoing would protect more civilian lives. But the simplest way to address the deadliness of so many police encounters is to train the officers to hold fire longer.

The officer in the most recent instance made it clear that his training was to respond quickly and forcefully so as to protect the officer's safety. If we want these situations to happen less frequently, we're going to have to insist that police accept even higher risk than they currently do. I respect them for taking on a risky job, it's not that I'm trivializing the seriousness of the threats they occasionally face, but I'm not going to shy away from what criticism of their actions really implies. I think those who do criticize the officers involved in the shootings without acknowledging that they're also asking every officer to accept more risk in their lives aren't taking responsibility for their views.

And sure, I grew up being careful to not look dangerous around cops too. I agree it's smart. But that doesn't mean it should be considered everyone's responsibility either - pushing the responsibility of appearing harmless on to the populace at large isn't the answer.

[beshiva]

I would like to throw into the mix here as we continue to debate the murder of Andy Lopez...i ask all participating to take the time to go to Huffington Post today and read the article "Judge to Iraq Vet: "your service makes you a threat" or go to TED and listen to "life after Iraq"....this man gives us all some insight and pause to reflect on what sort of person comes back from War and who we might be unleashing on our communities....It is indeed, so sad a commentary on our inability, and unwillingness to understand the deep problems Vets face after they have faced the unspeakable....

I believe Eric Gelhaus is guilty of a terrible crime, never the less, he too is a victim....as he came home and was rewarded by the Santa Rosa Sheriff's Department, and given a job...when he probably was a most unstable man....he was to put it frankly, NUTS....and apparently, that didn't matter much to the Sheriff Department...i lay a lot of the blame on them!!

We are such a sick society, as we debate what is lethal force, extreme force, acceptable force, etc....and it does not even take into account the mindset of the individual who perceives what a threat might be...real or imagined....Gelhaus was a trainer...geez....if he was the trainer, we really all are in for a long, sad wait for justice....because he is the person they consider sane enough to make a judgment about whether to kill or not to kill....Lordy, help us all....

He was a Vet who was rewarded for killing, comes home, and is supposed to distinguish who he should or should not kill....i just don't believe he was sane enough to make this sort of call....but The Sheriff went right ahead and hired him!!.....this act took place, in broad daylight, a child (could he not EVEN judge that?), and in an area with NO obstruction whatsoever, a wide open area...and still, he shoots this child....not a mistake!! this is WHAT he was trained to do...shoot, kill, and ask questions later, or don't even ask questions at all....it makes me livid but what are we to demand of our leaders, when they don't even know how to lead?.....enough said....

fine, I agree it's silly to have hard & fast "no shoot till they shoot" rules. ...

[podfish]

.. what sort of person comes back from War and who we might be unleashing on our communities......when he probably was a most unstable man....he was to put it frankly, NUTS...

that's not really an accurate perspective on this situation. It assumes that the safe society you wish we had is 'normal'. It's not. There's a lot of violence here too, though it is way more extreme where Gelhaus served in the military. You can't just call someone who's had experiences with violence that colors their reactions insane. I heard someone with a military background use a great phrase - he said his reactions were 'maladaptive'. As a society we must define what reactions we expect and train people till these are second nature. The problem isn't that Gelhaus would have failed that training - it was in how he defined what adaptive behavior and attitudes were.

[Sabrina]

Well said Beshiva! There should not only be mental screening prior to hire, but consistently throughout the term of career, being as the job of a police officer is high stress due to the life risk, (yes I would ask those who chose this job to take higher risks for their lives and take responsibility for that, as in ~ it's a job to protect the people (not kill them)).

It's my belief that police officers, as protectors of the peace / of the civilians should be expecting to take higher risk with their lives AND they should be consistently required to regularly engage in therapeutic counseling or support groups as well as have quarterly or other regular mental stability evaluations. Person's with life experiences on the front lines of modern wars, I believe, once home as civilians, should not have to be put in situations where they must use weapons; there is far too much instance of diagnosed and undiagnosed post traumatic stress syndrome in soldiers of war that result in violent acts later in civilian society. Google it.

I would like to throw into the mix here as we continue to debate the murder of Andy Lopez...

[Sabrina]

Hello Richard,

To answer this point, I'd say that there are plenty of heroes out there who did not want to join the military because they didn't believe in that - but they do believe in keeping the peace and risking their lives for it. Just think, instead of joining the "military" as an option for young people to get training, money, and a career, they could join the police force and it would be a different kind of experience that included psychotherapy, Aikido / Zen ideas for dealing with confrontation, and perhaps better designed bullet proof clothing.

I totally sympathize with your point! But, again, where are we going to find all these people who did not choose to get in the military, yet desire to enter a profession in which they must be prepared on a daily basis to order people around, dominate them physically, and deal with mean, scary, and desperate people who hate them and carry weapons?

[Sabrina]

THIS is exactly why I made such a big deal a few years back, here on Wacco, when an officer questioned my son via a stranger assuming he was a suspect to a vandalism to his home - the way that man had the power to call the cops on my son and have him questioned scared the heck out of me with the likes of how violent cops have become. I feared for his physical safety.

They should demand...that those in charge of those departments to "step down" because they are doing a horrible job protecting its citizens!! It's sick, disgusting, and shameful!!! The arrogant bastards!!! Killing our children!!! They need to be stopped by taking to the streets and peacefully demanding all of their resignations!! Because, no one is protecting us anymore!!!

[nicofrog]

I do not know the "RIGHT ANSWER" I do not think there is one, I think the right questions are more important.

WHY is there a MILITARIZATION going on with our police services and what can we do about it.??
WHY 40 storm troopers in full riot gear for a protest that is mostly children?

WOULD THIS HAPPEN in OUR WHITE neighborhood?

WHY is there no protest at Big Five Sports?

WHY was a friend of mine just arrested for DUI by one of the 12 NEW highway patrol officers,he has "the look" from years of crazy living in the 60's but he is a gentle and polite and decent man,he was knocked to the ground in the jail,bleeding from handcuffs and his eye hemorrhaged from impact with the floor.(two days ago). they detained him for 8 hours even though someone payed his bail immediately. This is more Outrageous behavior.

why does a Casino mean we need 18 more cops?

Why did the sheriff's helicopters run full time for 6 days (at $1000 an hour) and god knows what the overtime costs for night time.
I don't know about you and your comfort levels,but I am renewing my passport while I still can.

Yes the toy gun is an issue but it is not THE issue and does not really belong in this conversation.
Racism, Irrational violence,and Militarism is what I see here.

[seenhear]

I agree this this message. A Military mindset is very different from a civilian mindset. Remember that the abu grave (sp) scandal was brought to light by an individual serving in the military who was trained as a civilian police officer in Maryland, I think.
They use stun guns to capture large bears that come too close to urban areas, and transport these bears to other places. Why can't this process be used with humans instead of deadly force?

Many police departments do use stun guns. I don't know about SoCoSD, though. But many do. An officer must decide which weapon is appropriate at that moment. If he has a stun gun, he also has a real gun. This officer saw what appeared to be a teen with a fully automatic assault rifle. Stun guns require the cop be within close range. A stun gun may have been a poor choice, given the perceived danger (if the toy had been a real gun) and the range.

[seenhear]

Maybe because Bears are not carrying guns?

I don't know about you, but I would not want to attempt to get close enough to a person carrying a gun to use a stun gun on them. If the gun was real and you missed...you'd be dead, or they might shoot you before you got close enough.

If you would take that chance, maybe you should apply for the job.

Tom

I don't recall the exact range, but police stun guns shoot electrodes about 30feet or so I think, that embed in the skin on contact, are connected via thin wires to the gun, and thus deliver adebilitating shock. Much like shooting a gun, but definitely a limited range, and they require some level of marksmanship/accuracy.

[seenhear]

I think this focus on overly realistic toy guns is a bit of a red herring. It seems to me that the fundamental issues in this case are

(1) Did the boy drop his toy gun when the cops told him to? Did he just continue to hold it? Did he actually raise his toy gun and point it at them (this seems extremely unlikely)? How much time did the boy have to follow police orders and drop his toy gun before Gelhaus drilled him?

(2) Why did Gelhaus find it necessary to drill this boy with seven bullets, virtually assuring his death? Did Gelhaus have that little confidence in his marksmanship? If so, he should have either been required to undergo more practice, or--after so many years on the force with such inadequate skill--been fired or demoted to desk duty.

(3) In their daily rounds through the neighborhoods how often do the police see people walking around openly carrying rifles? Were the police unaware of the current fad for these realistic toy rifles?

In sum, it seems to me that there could only be one justification for a police person ever to shoot someone, not to mention empty their gun at them: that person is either pointing a gun at them or appears to be in the process of doing so.

1) also - what was the range/distance from the Deputies' car to Andy? And, why didn't the cops stay in their car at a distance and tell Andy to comply over their PA/bullhorn that all cop cars have?
2) Cops are trained to fire 3-shot bursts, not empty their gun. Seems strange that Gelhaus wouldn't have fired a burst and paused to reassess.
3) "current" fad? When I was a kid in the 70's & 80's in Santa Rosa, I really, really wanted some cool replica toy guns. A couple friends had them. Never got any. But it's hardly a current fad. They've been around for ages. What we did use to "play guns" were laser tag guns and paint-ball guns, and high-powered SQUIRT (yes water) guns. None of which resembled real guns in any real way.

[occihoff]

Stun guns have become the favorite toy of sadistic police! They create instant agony without leaving telltale marks on your body.

Many police departments do use stun guns. I don't know about SoCoSD, though. But many do. An officer must decide which weapon is appropriate at that moment. If he has a stun gun, he also has a real gun. This officer saw what appeared to be a teen with a fully automatic assault rifle. Stun guns require the cop be within close range. A stun gun may have been a poor choice, given the perceived danger (if the toy had been a real gun) and the range.

[podfish]

Stun guns have become the favorite toy of sadistic police! They create instant agony without leaving telltale marks on your body.

don't just pin this on the police... lots of people seem to find them useful.

Bears fan John Grant made an appearance in Dodge County Circuit Court Tuesday, one day after using an electric stun gun on his wife Nicole, a Packers fan — to settle what he said was a bet on the result of Monday Night Football. John and Nicole Grant, from Illinois, were in a Mayville, Wisconsin, bar Monday night to watch the game between the Packers and Bears. John said that his wife agreed to a bet that would allow him to use a stun gun on her should the Packers lose, according to fdlreporter.com. Following the Bears’ victory, Nicole Grant called police from a nearby bowling alley, after John Grant had shocked her with the taser three times.

[occihoff]

3) "current" fad? When I was a kid in the 70's & 80's in Santa Rosa, I really, really wanted some cool replica toy guns. A couple friends had them. Never got any. But it's hardly a current fad. They've been around for ages. What we did use to "play guns" were laser tag guns and paint-ball guns, and high-powered SQUIRT (yes water) guns. None of which resembled real guns in any real way.

Those high-powered squirt guns sound great! Especially in hot weather! We didn't have such technologically sophisticated gadgets in my primitive youth.

don't just pin this on the police... lots of people seem to find them useful.

Oy!

[seenhear]

Stun guns have become the favorite toy of sadistic police! They create instant agony without leaving telltale marks on your body.

Uhm, okay... what's your point? Still better than a fatal gunshot wound, no? And they do leave marks on the body.

[Roland Jacopetti]

I don't know how any one else feels but I think that since military people have the mindset of shooting first before taking that little moment, no military personnel should be allowed into law enforcement. I know a lot of cops have military backgrounds and probably have done an OK job but I am just thinking that citizens, ordinary citizens, should take police training and that might curb a lot of violence on either end. Police are usually trained to think before shooting; military people are not.

If military people were not able to graduate from the military to law enforcement when their tours of duty are finished, young people contemplating careers in the military would lose one of the primary reasons for gaining that expertise, and the armed services would lose a primary selling point to entice young people into military service. How's that for a dilemma?

[Roland Jacopetti]

Maybe because Bears are not carrying guns?

I don't know about you, but I would not want to attempt to get close enough to a person carrying a gun to use a stun gun on them. If the gun was real and you missed...you'd be dead, or they might shoot you before you got close enough.

If you would take that chance, maybe you should apply for the job.

Tom

Taking this mindset, it would seem logical for law enforcement to kill or completely disable any person who might have on his/her person the means to kill the law enforcement person. Isn't there an inherent risk built in to law enforcement. Or is it really "Shoot first and ask questions later"?

[occihoff]

The point is that a sadistically inclined cop can feel freer to torture someone with a stun gun than to take the extreme measure of shooting them and having to explain why.

Uhm, okay... what's your point? Still better than a fatal gunshot wound, no? And they do leave marks on the body.

[GardenGoddess]

What can be done to prevent this from happening again?

I am originally from Bakersfield in Kern County, CA (which is the main setting in the book "Mean Justice"). I picketed the BPD re: my son's violent arrest a few years ago. (He was on the ground in handcuffs being jeered at and the several cops that were standing around repeatedly instructed the dog to bite him, almost tearing part of his ear off.)

To me the answer is - No Off-Camera Police. Period.

Also, thorough police training in ethics and how to recognize and respond to a disabled individual (whether suspected of a crime or not.) There should be an entrance exam designed to weed out racists, abusers and other unfit persons from public service duty.

[Shandi]

I agree that it would help if police were trained in the way you expressed, and if cameras were on every police car.

As far as weeding out racists, abusers, and otherwise unfit people, that might be a tough one, only because many applicants who apply to be on the force may have these characteristics. This is a legal way to express hatred, and domination tendencies.

I wonder what percentage of applicants really join to "protect and serve" I've only known 2 cops in my lifetime, and both had undesirable personal characteristics. Did this come from seeing the worst of humanity, or did they have these traits already?

I don't actually know any highly conscious people who have any desire for a career in the PD or the military. From my pespective, these states of mind seem to be polar opposites.

I am originally from Bakersfield in Kern County, CA (which is the main setting in the book "Mean Justice"). I picketed the BPD re: my son's violent arrest a few years ago. (He was on the ground in handcuffs being jeered at and the several cops that were standing around repeatedly instructed the dog to bite him, almost tearing part of his ear off.)

To me the answer is - No Off-Camera Police. Period.

Also, thorough police training in ethics and how to recognize and respond to a disabled individual (whether suspected of a crime or not.) There should be an entrance exam designed to weed out racists, abusers and other unfit persons from public service duty.

[tomcat]

Roland, what you have said here does not make sense to me. I was responding to someone who said "They use stun guns to capture large bears that come too close to urban areas, and transport these bears to other places. Why can't this process be used with humans instead of deadly force?", and I said "because Bears don't carry guns".

My point was that a Bear is not going to point a gun at a policeman and threaten their life. A taser gun (not a stun gun!) would disable a Bear or person from a safe 35 feet away.

But If someone is threatening the life of a policeman with a gun, how would you have them react? Remember, they may only have a split second to make the decision that could save their own life.

Obviously, if the person is only 'in possession of the means to kill' but not threatening by pointing a gun or attacking with a knife, then deadly force would not be required nor should it be permitted in my opinion.

Lastly, yes, there is indeed an inherent risk built in to law enforcement and I'm sure the police try to limit that risk by training to react to any perceived threat appropriately. But no matter how good the training, there will always be accidents and mistakes. They are human, after all.

That brings us back to the topic of this thread.. What IS the right answer regarding Police Violence? I don't know, but I'm sure it is not 'Let the bad guy take the first shot'.

Tom

Taking this mindset, it would seem logical for law enforcement to kill or completely disable any person who might have on his/her person the means to kill the law enforcement person. Isn't there an inherent risk built in to law enforcement. Or is it really "Shoot first and ask questions later"?

[Roland Jacopetti]

Roland, what you have said here does not make sense to me. I was responding to someone who said "They use stun guns to capture large bears that come too close to urban areas, and transport these bears to other places. Why can't this process be used with humans instead of deadly force?", and I said "because Bears don't carry guns". . .

Hi, Tom. I didn't make myself clear.
How does the policeman make the decision that a given person in a given situation is threatening his/her life, and must be shot. Taking into consideration, I need to point out, that there's no such thing as a gunshot intended to stop a person the way a taser shot does; guns are to kill, period. Remember - for many years the London police carried no guns on duty unless they could demonstrate that they'd meet deadly force going into a situation. Remember that there'd be many more dead people right now if armed police shot everyone whose actions might be construed as life-threatening.

You say, basically, that possession of the "means to kill" is not enough to warrant deadly force from the police. If the police shoot a person for any reason or no reason, and find a firearm somewhere on or near the body, it's the work of an instant to drop that gun next to the dead hand and create a defense. It's also the work of an instant to take a handgun from the policeman's pocket and drop it on or near the body. That's called a "throw-down" - happens all the time.

"Attacking with a knife?" Again, the mere possession of a knife can be, and often is, construed as intent to use it. Or if I pull out my Swiss Army knife, hold it in my hand without opening the blade, and say, "Leave me alone or I'll use this," does that warrant a deadly reply or not? Am I not saying, "If you do leave me alone, I WON'T use this"?

Yes, there are always accidents and mistakes, some of which may result in the death of a law enforcer, some in the death of a private citizen. Which do you think happens most often?

I don't know the answer to police violence either, and I agree it isn't "Let the bad guy take the first shot." But is it "Let the good guy take the first shot"?

I think the model for police performance in our time has become, more and more, the performance of the U.S. military in the course of unwanted and unnecessary intrusions into the lives of people in foreign countries. For both police and military, this often looks like a crowd of heavily armed people clad in 21st Century body armor, kicking down the door of a house and running in screaming obscenities. Maybe neither you nor I have the answer to police, or military, violence, but we've sure got a hell of a problem, and it isn't going to go away unless SOMEONE finds some answers.

[tomcat]

Roland, you make some good points.
I assume that a 'Good' Cop is trained to use deadly force in a life threatening situation only (theirs or someone else) and adheres to the training and rules rigidly. I believe they must be allowed to defend themselves (or you), which MAY mean they have to take the first shot.
'Bad' Cops will break the rules and must be caught and dealt with harshly!

London cops now carry guns I guess. It is a sign of how violent our times have become. I believe it is even worse here in the USA.

Perhaps all police should have to wear cameras that cannot be tampered with so that all cases can be reviewed.
Better training and higher standards of all kinds would help too.

I would never want a job like that... heck, just driving a car on our crazy roads is dangerous enough for me!

Tom

Hi, Tom. I didn't make myself clear.
How does the policeman make the decision that a given person in a given situation is threatening his/her life, and must be shot. Taking into consideration, I need to point out, that there's no such thing as a gunshot intended to stop a person the way a taser shot does; guns are to kill, period. Remember - for many years the London police carried no guns on duty unless they could demonstrate that they'd meet deadly force going into a situation. Remember that there'd be many more dead people right now if armed police shot everyone whose actions might be construed as life-threatening.

You say, basically, that possession of the "means to kill" is not enough to warrant deadly force from the police. If the police shoot a person for any reason or no reason, and find a firearm somewhere on or near the body, it's the work of an instant to drop that gun next to the dead hand and create a defense. It's also the work of an instant to take a handgun from the policeman's pocket and drop it on or near the body. That's called a "throw-down" - happens all the time.

"Attacking with a knife?" Again, the mere possession of a knife can be, and often is, construed as intent to use it. Or if I pull out my Swiss Army knife, hold it in my hand without opening the blade, and say, "Leave me alone or I'll use this," does that warrant a deadly reply or not? Am I not saying, "If you do leave me alone, I WON'T use this"?

Yes, there are always accidents and mistakes, some of which may result in the death of a law enforcer, some in the death of a private citizen. Which do you think happens most often?

I don't know the answer to police violence either, and I agree it isn't "Let the bad guy take the first shot." But is it "Let the good guy take the first shot"?

I think the model for police performance in our time has become, more and more, the performance of the U.S. military in the course of unwanted and unnecessary intrusions into the lives of people in foreign countries. For both police and military, this often looks like a crowd of heavily armed people clad in 21st Century body armor, kicking down the door of a house and running in screaming obscenities. Maybe neither you nor I have the answer to police, or military, violence, but we've sure got a hell of a problem, and it isn't going to go away unless SOMEONE finds some answers.

[Peacetown Jonathan]

I agree with Garden Goddess 100%. Cop cams on whenever they are on duty.

AND in any investigation, a full, UNEDITED video of the events ought to be made public immediately, unless the subject of the video (NOT THE TAXPAYER FINANCED OFFICER ON DUTY) objects for reasons of privacy.

Imagine that. Truth in policing. Wy do we, the people, deserve any less?

I am originally from Bakersfield in Kern County, CA (which is the main setting in the book "Mean Justice"). I picketed the BPD re: my son's violent arrest a few years ago. (He was on the ground in handcuffs being jeered at and the several cops that were standing around repeatedly instructed the dog to bite him, almost tearing part of his ear off.)

To me the answer is - No Off-Camera Police. Period.

Also, thorough police training in ethics and how to recognize and respond to a disabled individual (whether suspected of a crime or not.) There should be an entrance exam designed to weed out racists, abusers and other unfit persons from public service duty.

[handy]

Remember that there'd be many more dead people right now if armed police shot everyone whose actions might be construed as life-threatening.

There ARE many more dead people right now BECAUSE armed police shot those whose actions might be construed as life-threatening to them.

You say, basically, that possession of the "means to kill" is not enough to warrant deadly force from the police.

And the 2nd Amendment backs that up. Andy had an absolute right to be walking down the street with a long gun. The cop MAY have the right to ask questions, but what took place was murder by uniformed thug.

I don't know the answer to police violence either, and I agree it isn't "Let the bad guy take the first shot." But is it "Let the good guy take the first shot"?

Roland, this phrasing seems to miss the point entirely. Given that most of us (none governmental types) actually DO try to live our lives by the Golden Rule and the Non-Aggression Principle, the "bad guy" IS, BY DEFINITION, the one who takes the first shot. A badge and uniform does NOT automatically define "the good guy".

I think the model for police performance in our time has become, more and more, the performance of the U.S. military in the course of unwanted and unnecessary intrusions into the lives of people in foreign countries. For both police and military, this often looks like a crowd of heavily armed people clad in 21st Century body armor, kicking down the door of a house and running in screaming obscenities. Maybe neither you nor I have the answer to police, or military, violence, but we've sure got a hell of a problem, and it isn't going to go away unless SOMEONE finds some answers.

Part of the answer is the election process, as Shepard pointed out elsewhere. Fire the officer, fire and/or refuse to (re)elect ANYBODY who covers up or tries to justify this behavior.

Out in the general public, individual shunning and shaming would seem to be potentially effective. Look up pictures, learn to identify them, refuse to serve them, remind them as constantly as possible that they are low-life liars who SWORE AN OATH to protect and defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and have GONE BACK ON THEIR WORD now that they have locked in a paycheck and perqs at our expense.

I'd like to be able to ask the murderer exactly which part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was he protecting and defending when he decided to kill Andy.