Bill Barr Excises 'Attorney' From His Title As He Leads Our Nation's Police Soldiers Into The War At Home
from the looking-for-a-fist-to-put-his-face-in dept
It seems the only reason Attorney General Bill Barr opens his mouth is to apply more tongue-polish to the nearest policeman's boot.
Echoing the pro-law enforcement rhetoric of his boss, Barr has expounded frequently on the rule of law, even as the administration he serves does everything it can to subvert it. It's not really a high-wire act. No one expects anything less from Bill Barr. And certainly no one expects anything more from him either.
Barr has gone on the warpath against encryption, something that seemingly only stymies the Federal Bureau of Going Darkness and a few very confused law enforcement officials. He's also gone on the warpath against the public in general, demoting them to servants of public employees, rather than recognizing it's actually the other way around.
He has decided to amplify the divisiveness that already plagues police departments and the constituents they're supposed to serve. He has done this by elevating cops to freedom fighters -- soldiers in the war-torn country we call the US of A. As is befitting a public industry that has already decided to clad itself in camo and deliver warrants in repurposed military vehicles, Barr summons up heroic imagery that presents everyday cops as protectors of rights and freedoms, even though law enforcement officers rarely respect rights on their way to depriving people of their freedom.
Last year, Barr turned the United States into Iraq during a speech to a gathering of police union reps:
[W]hen police officers leave their precincts every morning, there are no crowds on the highway cheering you. And when you come home at the end of the day after a job well done, there are no ticker tape parades.
One reason for this is that law enforcement is fighting a different type of war. We are fighting an unrelenting, never-ending fight against criminal predators in our society. While there are battles won and lost each day, there is never a final resolution – a final victory is never in sight.
It takes a very special kind of courage to wage this kind of fight – a special kind of commitment; a special kind of self-sacrifice.
He may be right about the last part, but he's wrong about everything else. You can't serve a community well when you view its residents as enemy combatants and your police force as a conquering army. And, unlike the soldiers Barr idealizes them as, cops are far less likely to sacrifice themselves when the option to "sacrifice" a civilian is still on the table. Real soldiers aren't nearly as self-absorbed. But our nation's cops are and it has been drilled into their heads that every person presents a threat and their only obligation is to make it home alive.
Barr followed that up with another hyping of the War at Home during his speech at a law enforcement awards ceremony:
“I think today, American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers,” Barr told the crowd. “And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves―and if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”
Barr believes police officers do not need to earn respect. He believes it's owed to them. And if it isn't given, the police will abdicate their obligations to the public. This is a man who apparently would rather see citizens killed or injured than see cops go without their unearned respect.
The Attorney General's outlook remains unchanged in 2020. In his speech to a law enforcement "wellness" symposium, the AG once again pretended to be leading an army, rather than a group of narrowly-tasked public servants.
There were times in the past when we did not show enough respect for men and women who served in our armed forces. I remember those times, particularly during and after the Vietnam War. Today, thankfully, veterans and members of the military receive the respect they deserve for their sacrifice and heroism in defense of our nation.
We should be showing our police officers the same gratitude we show our soldiers. Soldiers protect our people by fighting our enemies abroad, while the police protect our people by guarding them here at home. Foreign wars usually come to an end, but the battle that law enforcement fights never comes to an end. There is never a final victory, it is constant. That takes a special kind of courage and a special kind of sacrifice.
While policing is demanding, it is also uniquely rewarding. It is one of our country’s highest callings, and we are blessed that there are men and women of character willing to serve selflessly so that their fellow citizens can live securely. We owe our officers the support and services they need to work their way through problems.
Everytown, USA is once again Vietnam. Except we can't bring our boys back because they're already here. If we can't give these heroes a ticker tape parade every time they punch out then that's on us. We don't deserve them, says Barr, not if we don't pay them the respect they're "owed."
What a crock of shit. What an asinine assertion. At least soldiers in foreign wars are tasked with winning hearts and minds as well as battles. Law enforcement can't even be bothered to do that. They've done all they can to place themselves away and above those they serve for years. And just when it seemed like the public had had enough, an AG is sworn in who thinks this chasm the police have dug is more worthy of protection than the citizens who stand on the other side of it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, law enforcement, respect, william barr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Next step in fighting the war
The current trend in fighting wars is to hand as much off as possible to mercenaries and private interests. This kind of rhetoric makes me wonder when this logic is applied to the domestic front and more police enforcement becomes a matter of contracting to the lowest bidder a la Blackwater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next step in fighting the war
The trend to which you refer has already taken a huge toll upon our armed forces, and yes - our government seems totally cool with treating our service members like mercenaries. Repeating the stupidity with our police force is ... well, really stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The beating will continue until morale improves
The funny thing is is that while people like Barr would never be honest enough to admit it the the police are getting all the respect they deserve, and if it's not as much as they think they are owed they have only to look to themselves to find out why.
Treat the public as the enemy and show no respect for their rights, property or even lives? Guess what, they'll return the favor.
Show time and time again that you consider those with badges as more important than those without? Don't be surprised when the public faces that contempt and returns it in kind.
Make clear that you have absolutely zero interest in weeding out the worst of the worst, and in fact will only even begin to make a token effort in that direction with enough public outrage? Congrats, you've taught people that you don't consider corruption or other abuses of power to actually be a problem, and that if people want anything to even maybe be done they'll have to drag you kicking and screaming into the light and force the issue.
People like Barr are in fact some of the greatest threat to the police, as between constantly war imagery, repeatedly telling police that the public is the enemy and is out to get them, and refusing to do anything to clean up the corruption overflowing in the police and in turn making clear that they support that sort of behavior he and those like him ensure that the public can not, and should not, trust or respect the police.
Whether he's doing it deliberately and indifferently/maliciously, or is just too stupid to realize it his constantly banging the 'the public is your enemy' drum is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because you can only act like that for so long before the public returns the favor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soldiers are also tasked with following rules of engagement. LEOs can literally shoot someone on first sight and, on average, get docked a few days’ pay for “overzealous enforcement of the law”. Even the FBI determined that the cop who shot Tamir Rice had acted properly, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well spoken.
Even without the over glorified attitude from Barr and others, we are already more lenient on LEOs than we are on Soldiers.
Keep in mind I have no military expertise, but to my understanding Soldiers have:
Meanwhile for LEOs we give military equipment to trigger happy people that:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Don't forget that soldiers have a duty to not follow illegal orders, whereas LEO's have a tendency to ignore rules, laws, policies and and get assistance from their superiors in covering up (or at least passive approval by not punishing wrong doers) their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Cops no longer have to obey the laws they enforce. They don't have to even KNOW the laws they enforce. And at the end of the day, they will rely on some judge to grant them immunity for anything that they do that's not in the public's best interest. No wonder they are not making many friends outside of their profession.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Keep in mind I have no military expertise, but to my understanding Soldiers have..."
Genuine US soldiers who have military expertise have, repeatedly and often, felt free to comment on the way police are handling guns, escalation of force, and assessment of threats.
As you imply and suggest their criticism has not been flattering for the police.
US police are, bluntly put, neither trained to uphold the law nor trained to properly handle firearms. And yet they're armed and equipped with military weaponry and nigh-blanket immunity to prosecution once they invariably manage to apprehend unarmed "suspects" by shooting them multiple times in the back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ORRRRRR:
ORRRRRR:
ORRRRRR:
[W]hen teachers leave their schools every morning, there are no crowds on the highway cheering you. And when you come home at the end of the day after a job well done, there are no ticker tape parades.
Funny, nobody seems to be getting a ticker tape parade every day when they go home. Why is that? Oh, yeah, everybody else does a days work (without the benefit of having guns handy to abuse people) and they just go home at the end of the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Usually, but around here, rapid bridge replacements draw enough people that they started setting up bleachers and big-screen TVs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I like you a lot.
Spot on: cops are seldom mentioned in the most dangerous job profiles or professions lists.
And, for my part, not enough US cops get their faces blasted off with Joe Bidens shotgun.
If they did, they might learn to think. Too late maybe, but, What The Hell.
Welcome to US citizenship.
https://www.themarlincompany.com/blog-articles/dangerous-jobs-2019/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't laugh
To compensate for the administrations efforts, he's just trying to raise the Barr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't laugh
More like lower the Barr like the other agencies have been doing this administration.
The Limbo game isn't going so well this time. The FCC already broke their spine trying to get under. Judges have been trying to decide if they touched the floor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't laugh
Lowering the Barr is the result.
Raising the Barr was the intention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't laugh
I think it's time to just hang that Barr from the nearest tree because it simply isn't doing the job of setting any form of usable standard Barring those low-point miracles we've all seen and heard of by now.
It leaves me wondering; Who, at the end, will be paying the Barr tab for this mess?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't laugh
The contest is over: you have made the worst possible puns, Barr none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't laugh
I'm not sure whether to feel outraged or emBarrassed over that remark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't laugh
Is there some Barrier to feeling both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't laugh
I would say I'm ashamed to have even gone into this hideous round of punslinging...
...but that'd truly be closing the Barrn door after the horse bolted.
Time to close this down before the community decides to Barr us both from commenting further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't laugh
Hopefully he raises it high enough that Barr ends up behind bars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't laugh
Or, at the very least, gets disBarred as an attorney (and as Attorney General).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know that among the duties of the Attorney General is to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer, right? Because your posts on the subject don't demonstrate any awareness of this fact. He is not a representative of the people, and he isn't supposed to be--he's a member of the President's Cabinet, part of the Executive branch of the federal government, and the general responsibility of that branch is to (1) implement the president's policies, and (2) duly execute the laws of the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
His oath of office states that he will 'protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' which makes that his first priority. Failing to hold law enforcement officers who disrespect citizens rights is therefore his first duty. Since the president takes the same oath, and is therefore enjoined from violating the law, whatever his priorities are cannot deter (legally) from that first duty. Also, since law enforcement officers have no legislative immunity (yes we know about the court made exceptions but I wonder about their constitutionality even if those exceptions come from the SCOTUS) from breaking the law, holding law enforcement officers accountable when they break the law and/or violate citizens rights would be a part of that first duty.
That Barr fails to investigate and charge law enforcement officers when they break the law and/or violate citizens rights he is failing in his first duty. That the president is OK with this merely keeps Barr in office, and enlightens us to the presidents policies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, how do we get some group like the EFF or ACLU to keep submitting amicus briefs to remind the judges of this fact and start swinging the needle in the other direction to stop the "preexisting on-point" case fallacy of qualified immunity defence of lawsuits. It is crazy that EVERY case is found not guilty unless it has already been predetermined by a prior exactly the same case that has already has a judgement saying something is unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That fact doesn't make the situation any better. If anything, it makes Barr (and the president) look even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You know that among the duties of the Attorney General is to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer, right? "
It is funny in a sick sort of way ... how this fact is not really appreciated.
For example, most of the law 'n order rhetoric focuses upon the apprehension and prosecution of lowly criminals who are then sentenced via a plethora of rules and regulations espousing zero tolerance, minimum sentencing, three strikes, and more - but this law 'n order stuff seems to be inversely proportional to your political connections. Can't help but scoff when ever I hear that blind justice, equal under the law bullshit.
Why do you defend the indefensible? Honest question, do you agree with the things being done?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I fail when I try to reconcile:
Soldiers protect our people by fighting our enemies abroad, while the police protect our people by guarding them here at home.
with this:
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again
Is he just talking out of his ass again, or as Attorney General is he simply unaware of the Supreme Court decision saying otherwise?
One thing the police have in common with seemingly everyone in the trump administration - you don't have to have any fucking clue as to what you're doing as far as your job is concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Soldiers protect our people by fighting our enemies abroad"
I do not agree with this assessment. The above may have been the case many decades ago ... damn near a century ago. But recently our soldiers are doing the bidding of money grubbers rather than any protection of the nation. We need to be honest about these things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oil, its all about Oil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The above may have been the case many decades ago ... damn near a century ago."
Specifically it was true during WW2. After that it US army action has mainly been in order to consolidate colonialism and puppets. During the cold war the standards on what was considered an "acceptable" US "ally" to support was dropped all the way into the crapper, which is how Saddam Hussein ended up being given the keys to Chicago in the 80's and how Usama Bin Laden ended up being given the CIA's finest education in "how to terrorist" for the sake of running the soviets out of afghanistan.
It's good business for the following US administrations who end up always having a decent casus belli on tap whenever they need to bribe their campaign contributors with the possibility of looting a middle-eastern nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having got someone to lead the police against the population into place, all Trump needs now is an excuse to cancel the elections, and covid19 might just give him that excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chicken Hawk Facists
They do seem to talk about civil war quite a bit don't they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
covid is a seriously stupid set of things
i have a slightly different but very similar problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again...
Never trust a LEO. Any of them. There are no "good ones".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Again...
"Never trust a LEO. Any of them. There are no "good ones"."
You are a perfect counterpoint to Barr. Extremist views are exactly what Barr and Trump want you to have. Creates a good excuse for more control. Keep it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again...
How do you determine whether to trust a LEO when confronted by one? If your method isn't foolproof you could end up dead on your own front porch. Please enlighten us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again...
There is a difference between trust and cooperation. One could cooperate with law enforcement (in the interest of self preservation) and then try to correct any wrongdoing later. An increasingly dubious contention.
There is no such thing a foolproof, but one can increase the odds in their favor, and then work the system later. There are many cases where municipalities pay out, sometime enormous sums, in mitigation of wrongdoings, and it is very unfortunate that those actions don't do anything to improve the relationship.
One's lack of trust can be expressed by not giving permission for the LEO's to do anything by requiring that they follow rules and laws so much as possible. Those LEO's will do what they will do anyway, whether that works for them down the road is another thing. As you point out, getting to the point where you can do something down the road is the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again...
The first step is the way the Right is relabeing facts, logic, reason, and centrism as 'extremism.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To wit: same-sex marriage. Conservatives/right-wingers said that legalizing same-sex marriage was an extreme thing to do, that it would be going “too far left” or some shit like that. In reality, legalizing same-sex marriage was the “centrist” position — the true “far left” position on the matter would be “legalize same-sex marriage and outlaw opposite-sex marriage”.
Compromise is “extremism”. Equality is “extremism”. Anything even remotely to the left of any conservative position is “extremism”, even if it isn’t the exact 100% polar opposite thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They wouldn't outright outlaw normal God Fearing marriage, they would just give more tax credit to those gays and lesbos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives believe in one extreme: Only straight couples can get married. They want everyone else to believe that the other “extreme”, the opposing position supported by the political left, is marriage equality — that is, both straight couples and gay couples can get married. But it isn’t; this neutral stance is only framed as another “extreme” because the true opposite of the conservative position would be marriage inequality in the other direction (i.e., only gay couples can get married).
This framing gives conservatives ammunition to claim that the “other side” is being “extreme” as opposed to conservatives. Their positions are (rhetorically) framed as “neutral” so they can avoid the appearance of extremism to people who don’t know better. But their position is an extreme, and their problem is that the opposing position is neutral instead of the actual other “extreme” position. And sooner or later, people figure that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Compromise is “extremism”. Equality is “extremism”. Anything even remotely to the left of any conservative position is “extremism”, even if it isn’t the exact 100% polar opposite thereof."
That has less to do with "left" or "right" as much as it has to do with a particular type of mindset.
Most sane people have a sliding scale of behavior they consider "normal" or "acceptable". Going beyond that scale results in increasing degrees of reservation and eventually, outrage.
Good examples of this would be ages of consent, voting age, drinking age, driving age, etc. Most people can usually come to terms with 15-18 on those, depending on upbringing and culture. If the number given is "11" or "35" people will react in outrage or disbelief.
But there are a lot of people who instead of that sliding scale have a singular point. Any single divergence from that point, no matter how small instantly results in outrage. THAT is where we find much of the alt-right who feel personally threatened and outraged over "the wrong whatever". Age, skin color, language, religion, creed, opinion, clothing, or address.
This, essentially, is the mindset of the natural bigot. Tribalism gone over the deep end.
And unfortunately it's oh so very attractive in a way because it means that once you go down that path you no longer need to spend ANY effort in actually thinking and evaluating. How you'll think and react is all pre-decided.
That this mindset turns a member of homo sapiens sapiens into an automated hate machine is less relevant to those people now getting their highs out of collective hatred. All that's left is to find any way or argument to justify why they must still be in the right even if everyone else outside of their own circle now looks at them with scorn and disbelief. The logical conclusion is the fortress mentality we see in the current "right wing" of the US, where even NOT adapting wholeheartedly to their views is now seen as betrayal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or rather than a line or a point, a ray that starts at their own location and only points right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Or rather than a line or a point, a ray that starts at their own location and only points right."
Not even that. Haven't you noticed just how much of the typical US right-wing propaganda is collectivist claptrap which needs a dictatorship - and usually at least a nominally communist one - to even function?
The typical blind faith in "authority" and "law enforcement" espoused by the likes of Barr, for instance, implicitly requires the concept of "individual right" to be completely abolished in favor of the collectivist belief that the State Can Not Be wrong.
It's really ironic - to a ridiculous degree - that a great many of the closest held beliefs of those who today call themselves "republican" have only been seen embraced by nations such as the DDR and the Soviet Union.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again...
Deep state or the new world order is writing the narrative now. Give it a couple weeks and what used to account for the facts gets rewritten. I have been watching this for decades. Its good to see others catching up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell does Hulk Hogan and his flunkies have to do with this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Step 1: Sue Gawker out of existence
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Make America Great Again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are a tool of those writing the narrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And by making the loudest cries of "Conspiracy!" come from people who cry it every time they stub their toe, so are you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You didn't stub your toe! That pain is fake news! fake newwwwwwwwwws!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a faaaaaake!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, fuck you, man, I’m not part of the nWo B-Team.
WOLFPAC FOR LIFE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Stone, you are a person with special needs. I don't dare ridicule you, but I also don't have the time to educate you either!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, yes, resorting to calling me names (with an allusion to an ableist slur, no less!) instead of laughing at a lame-ass pro wrestling joke. Surely, I’m the one in need of education~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can't help but find it both funny and telling that someone so eager to spin conspiracy theories is so incredibly quick to resort to petty insults the second someone calls them on it. Really shows just how insecure and/or dishonest they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Never a right-winger's accusation that isn't projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Nice try, Hamilton.
Would you like us to dig up all the love letters you write to Barr and John Smith?
You're not really in a position to whine about same-sex anything, fuckwad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Again...
"You are a perfect counterpoint to Barr. Extremist views are exactly what Barr and Trump want you to have. "
Unfortunately he has a point. There's a disturbance in your neighborhood. You call the cops. They arrive in a shitty mood. fifteen minutes later your teeth are all over the floor and you are facing a charge of "resisting arrest" because the thug in blue badly needs to hurt someone over his latest girlfriend leaving him...and his partner will do the "right thing" and confirm his story.
Or maybe they show up, take your statement, professionally investigate, then go away.
It could go either way and in the US of today it's the flip of a coin whether you get the dirtbag or the normal cop.
And this is all if you're a caucasian. God forbid you're of an ethnicity with the added risk of ending up shot 8 times in the back for Being Brown in Public.
Mind you, if you're black and living in the US today your parents may have given you The Talk and you know enough to instantly drop to your knees while holding your hands behind your head. You might get away with a round of nightsticks and boots.
Unfortunately when the pot odds you'll end up beaten, maimed, framed or dead as a result of encountering police, even if completely innocent, are non-zero...the "extremist" view becomes the wiser one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Again...
Or some ride along who likes to play cop shoots you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Again...
Or that.
To summarize my points above, if you already know interacting with cops has a 1 in 20 chance of getting you beaten, maimed or killed, what sane man would still take that chance? It's not "extremism". It's "Not gambling with your life".
That's what makes what Trump and Barr are doing so damn bad. They don't need to turn every cop into a thug to draw a border zone between civilians and law enforcement. They just need to have the back of that one cop in a hundred who enjoys the high of being a sadist on the public's dime.
As a result that cop isn't one in a hundred any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some are good, other times mistakes and bad calls are made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When "the good ones" are unwilling or unable to remove/prosecute "the bad ones" then the safe assumption is that they can't be trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is fascist in nature. This is Barr rallying the police state, ensuring all us civilians are seen as the enemy, and instilling in the police a sense of entitlement. That they are owed more than the wages they earn, and the extra privlages they already have. This leads no where good, and call me an alarmist, but this is just more proof of the fascist nature of law enforcement in this nation, and of the police state's mentality. This is scary shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad cops are better than no cops? That's where he's going to hang his hat?
Does he honestly think pulling police protection away is going to get him his ticker tape parade or make public perception of the police better in any way? I don't think he's thought this through.. Show us your plan for how you are going to remove people's police protection to produce your parade!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops' Just Deserts?
"And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves..."
Barr thinks the non-cop citizenry should start giving cops what they deserve?! Has Barr read a history book or kept up with the news during his own lifetime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cops' Just Deserts?
I don't think the sanitation department would want to clean up after that, but if we combine it with nuclear waste we wouldn't have to look at it for what...10,000 years or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect is earned, not owed
As I noted in my comment above they are getting the respect and support they deserve, they're just not getting the respect and support he thinks they deserve, which is apparently 'total and unquestioning'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cops' Just Deserts?
Hell - a medieval or ancienr history book would show just how dangerous that sort of open ended sentiment is as people find out they "deserved" a horrific tortuous death involving pouring molten metal down their throat!
Even the recenr Joker movie shows how incredibly poor that choice of words is - I am pretty sure if a riot broke out after saying that he would face accusations of inciting a riot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]