Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: America seems a bit fucked up tbh - The Something Awful Forums

Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: America seems a bit fucked up tbh

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Grundulum posted:

One thing that came up towards the end of the last thread was a suggestion that officers be allowed to turn in blank report forms, but also be harshly punished for turning in a false report. What unintended consequences would this have?

Officers cannot be forced to file a report in which they may incriminate themselves. They can be required to file a report which incriminates their peers.

Knowingly filing a false report is a firing offense and a crime pretty much everywhere, but appears to be rarely prosecuted, either due to the difficulty in proving the "knowingly" part of the offense, or due to institutional apathy. Based on my time working for the government, I suspect it is a little of column A and a little of column B.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2015 06:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 08:25

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I'm deeply uncomfortable with the precedent set by implied consent/no refusal laws, even though I understand the reasoning, so I'm pretty OK with Garrity.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2015 08:30

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Also, this is a bit more like your employer accusing you of stealing and demanding that you give a sworn statement in front of their lawyers or get fired. I personally think that a person shouldn't lose their job for exercising their legal rights, but since the Constitution generally doesn't bind private employers, this would be an issue for union mediation or similar. Not coincidentally, I think the decline of labor unions in the US has been bad for workers.

PostNouveau posted:

What is the reasoning behind no refusal laws?

I could see this both ways. I understand the no incrimination thing, but I would also think that, since the police can search you if their suspicions clear some standard, they could call your refusal to do a breath test an obstruction of their investigation.

The justifications I've found are the aforementioned "having a driver's license is a conditional privilige, not a right, and as a condition of it, the state can require you to submit to testing," and the fact that DUI would be much harder to enforce if the cops had to get a warrant for every single blood or breath sample, so the license revocation is a stick to get you to consent to a search. I would be more sympathetic to the "driving is a privilege" argument if driving wasn't effectively necessary for normal living and employment in large parts of this country. It's also worth noting that the court only upheld the warrant requirement for compelling a blood test from from someone arrested for DUI by a 5-4 margin in Missouri v. McNeely (2013).

I have similar feelings about Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association, which paved the way for random drug testing of employees in safety-sensitive positions. While I recognize the importance of making sure that pilots, air traffic controllers, locomotive engineers, and police officers aren't coming to work high, allowing this one suspicionless, warrantless search because we really need it is the camel's nose under the tent.

# ¿ Nov 30, 2015 18:23

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

PostNouveau posted:

Are those weak-poo poo charges? What kind of felony is second-degree riot?

Riot in the second degree gets you up to five years and a $10,000 fine, assault in the second degree is up to ten years and $20,000. The shooter is facing five counts of the latter, don't know if or how they'll stack.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Nov 30, 2015

# ¿ Nov 30, 2015 23:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

A Fancy Bloke posted:

Clearly they are just big dorks. How could anyone like that be dangerous?

Or, maybe it's because it's pointless to charge someone for conspiracy to commit a crime when you can charge them with the actual crime?

PostNouveau posted:

Is it only murder that the accessories get charged with the same crime as the triggerman? I just saw a story where a getaway driver took a murder charge on an armed robbery gone south.

You can always google the felony murder rule yourself.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2015 00:53

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Grundulum posted:

That makes sense if conspiracy is an included lesser charge, and the jury could convict on it even if they acquit on the act itself. (I think someone said that's the case in CO.) If not, then charging with both seems like a good way to ensure that something sticks.

Be that as it may, I don't think the prosecutor's decision not to throw in a conspiracy charge is an attempt to let misunderstood white youth off the hook, as KomradeX and Dexo suggested at the start of this discussion.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2015 02:34

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Jarmak posted:

I understand the argument for negligent homicide but I just really don't think its a winner, if that chokehold had been uniformly banned then you'd have a strong case but since in other departments it would have been allowable under their policies I just don't think that case has a chance. Civil negligence is a different issue however, though you'd have to go after the department because there's no way that conduct pierces qualified immunity.

Now that last bit would be a law I'm not sure is good(tm), I can understand both sides of the argument for QI but I'm very on the fence about it.

I'd disagree on that point. The officer might have a QI defense if the officer's level of force was reasonable for the circumstances, even if the method was outside the scope of department policy, but it wasn't. I don't think Pantaleo ever tried to raise a QI defense at trial.

Jarmak posted:

First off he wasn't "choked to death" which implies the cop kept him in a hold until he was dead and would be legit lethal force. This level of force is much more in line with something like throwing a suspect to the ground and accidentally putting his head into the curb in the process. It's a non-lethal level of force that resulted in accidental death, in many departments it is a completely authorized method to effect a non compliant arrest.

Any application of force always carries a risk of lethality, that doesn't retroactively mean "lethal force was applied".

Per CFR � 1047.7(a), "Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm." Given that the department use of force guidelines specifically prohibited choke holds because they could kill people, it's hard to argue that applying one was anything other than deadly force. Similarly, intentionally bashing a suspect's head into the curb would be deadly force. Given that, I think you have to examine the case from the perspective of whether the officer had a reason to use deadly force.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2015 20:37

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I think the problem with your hypothetical is that "being face down in a puddle of water" isn't a medical problem, whereas a gunshot wound or difficulty breathing are.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2015 22:46

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

falcon2424 posted:

I disagree; a blocked airway is as medical as anything else.

It happens to be a danger that everyone understands and knows how to mitigate.

But that doesn't change a police officers duty (or lack of duty) to mitigate continued injury that's a consequence of their arrest.

Not really. It's the difference between pulling someone out of a fire and treating burn injuries.

I agree that the police have an obligation to ensure that people in their custody receive appropriate medical care, whatever that may be, but I think making the officers themselves responsible for providing that care is problematic legally. Most officers aren't going to be certified EMT-Bs, so you'd basically be requiring them to provide untrained medical care to injured suspects. If an officer shoots a suspect, and the suspect dies shortly afterward while the same officer is treating them, can the officer be sued for malpractice? Charged with murder?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 00:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Javid posted:

I feel like failing to be familiar with the policies you work under should be some sort of negligence.

"I choked a dude because I didn't actually read anything they gave me when I signed up" is not a defense, it's a confession.

You're right, the phrasing is generally something along the lines of, "...knew or that a reasonable officer would have been aware of." You're not allowed to gun down jaywalkers on the basis that you never checked if that was a situation where the fleeing felon rule applied. The lack of knowledge clause generally covers minutiae which don't come up in day to day practice ("huh, I guess a morph suit actually is considered high visibility clothing") or where case law hasn't been established.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Dec 2, 2015

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 00:26

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

falcon2424 posted:

I agree that there should be a caveat like, "provide aid to mitigate ongoing injuries, within the scope of the person's training."

Police aren't EMTs. So, I'd expect them to pull people out of immediate danger, provide simple first-aid to keep severe injuries from getting worse, and call EMTs when necessary.

To walk through your shooting case: Let's assume the cops shoot a guy. Suspect ends up handcuffed with a bad leg wound. The leg is bleeding a lot. Suspect stops resisting when handcuffed.

I'm saying that police (like everyone else) know that excessive bleeding is dangerous. So, it's obvious that the person is going to receive additional harm by inaction.

OK, so let's say that, because he has the equivalent of a Boy Scout's first aid merit badge, the officer applies a bad tourniquet to the leg, and it ends up having to be amputated. Is the officer liable for that?

A lot of medical interventions carry risks for the patient.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 01:58

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Except dogpiling a non-violent suspect until he suffocates can not by any stretch of the imagination be called a necessary medical intervention. Was Freddie Gray suffering from an acute case of verticalitis?

I was responding to Falcon's general suggestion that police should have an affirmative legal duty to render medical assistance to suspects in custody. This came up earlier too, when someone was asking why the police don't perform first aid on the people they shoot. I'm not sure what the various state laws say about the matter, but I agree that police officers should have a duty to ensure that people in their custody receive adequate care. I just don't think it's necessarily wise to require the officers to provide that care themselves, for the reasons I outlined above. It might be possible to write some sort of Good Samaritan exception, but that requires accepting that police will be off the hook if they gently caress up treating the person they just shot.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Dec 2, 2015

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 02:17

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

falcon2424 posted:

Why would the officer (or anyone else) be liable for providing reasonable first aid? Especially first aid that they're trained to give?

You really think no one ever tries to sue for medical mistakes?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 02:31

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Trabisnikof posted:

Most states have Good Samaritan laws that limit the liability, and BSA hasn't taught tourniquets in a long long time. And cops do let people bleed to death before getting them medical care, so I think it'd be worth it.

I think letting cops provide care under a good Samaritan-like immunity is a workable solution, I just assumed there would be more pushback against limiting officer liability, given how uncomfortable or outright hostile people were toward qualified immunity when it came up.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 07:49

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Absurd Alhazred posted:

ETA: Sorry, didn't see your edit. I don't think what you're saying is true, because I am pretty sure that if I committed a crime, someone got fatally hurt during its execution, and died in spite of me attempting to subsequently save their life, it would still be considered a homicide.

I'm thinking more of situations where the police were justified in their use of force, but the suspect/patient is hurt by a medical mistake during subsequent treatment, or alleges that their treatment was substandard.

Watermelon City posted:

Someone is dying in front of you and you're scratching your chin going gee I don't know what's my liability?

What I personally might chose to do in a situation is different from what I think any person ought to be legally required to do in the same situation.

DrNutt posted:

So rather than have to deal with the occasional litigation, you think it is preferable to let someone bleed to death. That's pretty lovely.

No, I think letting the police treat people in their care under some sort of Good Samaritan-like immunity is perfectly workable, but I expect that there would be some pushback on that after the inevitable "suspect loses a limb due to substandard medical care but can't sue due to immunity" story, or allegations that police provided improper treatment to a shot suspect who dies after a questionable shoot so that he wouldn't live to tell his side of the story.

Like I said, it's workable, but it has the potential to create situations that I think people concerned about policing and justice would be unhappy with.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 22:26

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Nothing I wrote had anything to do with the police knowingly and provably killing people unlawfully.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2015 22:57

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

There's no Good Samaritan law where anyone would have immunity to those allegations

Without a confession, it's going to be nearly impossible to prove that poor medical care was due to malice rather than incompetence (which is what Good Samaritan laws protect). I suppose you could require that every police officer hold an EMT-B cert, but good luck finding the money for that, especially in smaller departments.

KomradeX posted:

This is what literally happened when that NYPD officer shot that dude in NYCHA housing he called his partner than I actually think they're Union Rep, to figure this or while this dude bleed to death in a stairwell in November

That particular detail was denied by both the prosecutor and the union.

quote:

Fliedner, the lead prosecutor in the case, did not mention the order in court Wednesday. He did say, however, that another report by the Daily News -- which claimed Liang texted his union representative right after the shooting -- was false.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 00:07

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Also where are you finding $600 EMT-B courses, because it's like two grand minimum around here.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 01:44

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Yeah, I don't think "they should have just let the knife wielding man go where he wanted to" is a reasonable solution.

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Do you know how ridiculous you sound when the outcome was that the guy didn't harm anyone and was subdued and lived?

"Hmm yes these cops are clearly doing something wrong here" -outcome is that the dude hurts no one and lives
"Great job, cops did everything that they should have" -some head case who hurt nobody summarily executed in the street by cops

What a joke.

Because sometimes the outcome looks like this:
(you can skip to 7:00 for the violence, but it's worth watching the lead up.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RTkGbiJpk&t=246s

# ¿ Dec 4, 2015 22:43

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

AreWeDrunkYet posted:

Yet there are plenty of videos of cops in other countries, in the rare occasions that they have to resort to deadly force, there is usually an aimed shot or two fired. The situation is then re-assessed, and if the suspect is still a threat, more shots are fired.

I don't understand your logic here. If the police are in a situation which justifies in using deadly force to stop a suspect or defend themselves, then it's by definition acceptable if the suspect dies. If the police aren't justified in shooting someone twenty times, they aren't justified in shooting them once.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2015 02:20

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I feel like, if the police have surrounded you, pepper sprayed you, shot you with beanbags, and yelled at you to drop the weapon or they will fire, you've had a lot of chances to give up peaceably at that point.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2015 08:51

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

I'm just curious what the liability would be if he, say, missed and shattered the dude's hand at the wrist. Or loving killed him. I'm pretty sure maiming someone for life in order to stop their suicide isn't covered under QI.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2015 08:28

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Or that bridge shooting-out-the-engine block case earlier. One of the arguments was that since spike strips might kill the driver, therefore you're justified in just executing him on purpose. Regardless of QI, that cop should not be working as a cop anymore, because that's not how it should work, police should still be trained to use the least lethal but still effective method of containing the threat, not take the opportunity to blow someone away once the minimum threshold of legality for lethal force is met.

That is not something anyone in that case argued, and the question of whether the officer violated department policy is immaterial to the question if whether he has immunity from suits by the suspect's heirs.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2015 20:02

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Radbot posted:

I don't give a gently caress about ballistics or any of that poo poo, beyond the fact that most rounds that most officers shoot around the world will still be lethal even if they have hit their target first.

Since you don't give a gently caress about ballistics, do you have any non-ballistics basis for this assertion?

# ¿ Dec 7, 2015 21:38

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

chitoryu12 posted:

the first one has the bizarre attempt by the police to demand that the man currently bleeding to death on the ground show them his hands and then handcuffing him without beginning medical treatment.

Well, the guy had literally just pulled a gun and tried to kill them, then fallen to the ground still holding it, so I can see why they might want to make sure they had him under control before setting him up with an IV. The officer on the radio calls for EMS as part of his "shots fired" call, and at 1:03, maybe 30 seconds after the gunfire, you can hear him direct one of the other officers to "get the EMS bag" and the two of them hustle out of frame right before the cut, so I don't know why you think the suspect didn't get prompt medical attention.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2015 18:35

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

KomradeX posted:

How is that not negligent homicide? He was literally behaving recklessly with a loving weapon

I'd guess that, since he didn't intend to pull the trigger, he lacked mens rea? IANAL.

He can still get taken for everything in a civil suit.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 20:55

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Trabisnikof posted:

Why wouldn't this fall under qualified immunity? The shooter was clearly acting in an official role at the time.

Talkin' about the guy spinning a gun on his finger cowboy style.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 21:13

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Javid posted:

If he's that incompetent with a firearm, he shouldn't be a cop.

Entirely true, but wholly irrelevant to bringing him up on criminal charges or filing a civil suit against him.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2015 00:11

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

A Fancy Bloke posted:

Oh and arguing the semantics behind the phrase "active shooter" because that's surely the important thing to focus on.

That derail started with oohhboy complaining that he police didn't follow the active shooter best practices promulgated by FEMA and other federal LE agencies.
I then explained that the reason they didn't was because the incident wasn't an active shooting according to the FEMA definition.
Then oohhboy and VitalSigns got mad because they were wrong about what an active shooter is per the people who promulgate active shooter protocol.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2015 08:19

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Toasticle posted:

I seriously don't get your point here. Recently, it was argued that the SFPD shouldn't have shot a guy with a knife (who had already stabbed one person) because he tried to walk away. Yet now you're arguing that the police should have killed this guy dead before he could hurt his wife again. The police shouldn't have shot these other people, but since they did, they should also have to shoot this cop as a matter of fairness?

# ¿ Dec 14, 2015 22:22

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

EDIT: You know what, it doesn't really matter.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Dec 15, 2015

# ¿ Dec 15, 2015 03:55

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

All the articles are going to say is, "two guys are suing the PD for $$$ damages, claim that they were just minding their own business when a cop decided to shoot them and frame them for armed robbery." I don't know whether anyone has cared enough to dig up their original court transcripts, or even whether doing so wold reveal anything relevant.

This looks like the filing, but apparently you need a login to view it.
Looks like they filed a similar suit last year?
IDK, stop reading clickbait like HuffPo and treating it like legitimate journalism.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Dec 16, 2015

# ¿ Dec 16, 2015 01:14

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

RareAcumen posted:

It's tumblr- sorry- but I think this is kinda relevant

It's not really though, because

quote:

It�s impossible to determine from the data whether individual complaints were dismissed for good reason, or whether investigators missed or failed to take into account evidence that would have resulted in more complaints being upheld.

The number of allegations filed vs the number upheld doesn't tell us anything.

If you pursue the related Chicago Tribune investigation, it notes that

quote:

Nearly 60 percent of all the complaints were thrown out without being fully investigated because the alleged victims failed to sign required affidavits. What's more, investigators won't consider an officer's complaint history as part of the investigation, and many of the cases come down to the word of the officer versus the accuser.

I think its reasonable to exclude allegations a person has been cleared of from a new investigation, and he-said she-said cases are always going to be difficult to prove.

It appears that most of these allegations are being dropped because the complainant doesn't follow through, or because there isn't enough evidence to substantiate them, rather than because they're being improperly dismissed.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 22:42

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

E:nm

Discendo Vox posted:

It would be interesting to see if, like habeas claims, some significant portion of the complaints are coming from a small number of crazy people flooding the system.

Here's the data, have at it.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 23:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

DARPA posted:

I wonder why people trying to complain an officer violated their rights wouldn't want to risk their freedom over swearing an affidavit that carries a felony charge if the justice system decided to gently caress them (again)?

So the department should, what, punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements?

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 23:20

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

DARPA posted:

I'd say Yes? Why does a statement need to be sworn to investigate something internally? It isn't a criminal trial. It's an administrative punishment by their employer. If what the officer did gets elevated to a criminal matter then the statement can upgrade its sweariness.

If literally the only evidence against a person is a statement that the accuser refuses to swear to the truthfulness of, I think the case should be dropped no matter who you are.

Trabisnikof posted:

How about investigate them and look at other complaints against the officer when doing so? You're right they shouldn't be punished without an affidavit, but as police remind us constantly, an investigation isn't a punishment. Investigate complaints and look at officer's history of repeat complaints when investigating.

It's fine if someone's discipline history is part of an investigation, but allegations of which a person was cleared shouldn't be used against them. Its just as scummy as employers using those "find anyone's arrest record" sites.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 23:33

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

It's OK when we do it to really bad people. Martial law will end once the revolution has been safeguarded.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Dec 17, 2015

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 23:46

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

DARPA posted:

They aren't fully investigating though. They're saying "All we have is the initial complaint. Case closed." before they even look into it. It's the "only evidence" because they haven't been bothering to look for anything more.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of these complaints are ones that don't have a lot of physical evidence.

"Hey officer DARPA, did you use an ethnic slur when you stopped a woman on Friday?"
"Nope."
"Well, she says you did."
"I see. Well, I didn't. Has she submitted a sworn statement to that effect?"
"No."
"Was there anyone else present?"
"No."
"OK, have a nice day."

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 23:56

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

DARPA posted:

More like,
"Officer Johnny White, this is the 14th complaint we've got of you calling a black citizen a friend of the family. We sent you to sensitivity training twice and suspended you for one day already. You're suspended without pay for the next week."
"But was it a SWORN statement?"
"Get hosed, you make the rest us look bad."

So you want to move the burden of proof on to the accused based on previous misbehavior and have people punished on the basis of unsupported, un-sworn testimony. That's not hosed up and dystopian at all. I can see why the police are glad they have unions. (Also, we were talking about allegations an officer has been previously cleared of, but you've suddenly shifted to an officer with a record of substantiated complaints.)

# ¿ Dec 18, 2015 00:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 08:25

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

botany posted:

And you know that how?

The aforementioned Chicago Tribune article says, "many of the cases come down to the word of the officer versus the accuser."

Trabisnikof posted:

Funny that when its a police investigation of police, getting investigated or having unsworn testimony collected against you is some horrible violation of officer's rights. But if police did that to anyone else, it would be their job.

Edit: once again, don't move the goal posts, we're talking about even just investigating complaints not firing or arresting people.

The difference being, if the police want to act against you, they have to get those witnesses to swear to their testimony in a court of law. Which is different from what DARPA has been suggesting.

DARPA is literally talking about suspending people without pay in the post I quoted, so don't accuse me of moving the goal posts.

DARPA posted:

These aren't crimes (yet, and if they get elevated then the burden of proof does as well). These are customer service issues... Instead of confrontational, the department should be vigorously trying to resolve issues instead of adding barriers to investigation. "Come back Monday - Friday between 9 and 5 to sign your complaint with a supervisor" is a great way to prevent your buddies from facing up to what they've done, and a terrible way to serve the community.

It's wrong to put the burden of proof on the accused in any circumstance, criminal justice or otherwise. Your arguments are no different from the people who complain that criminals keep getting off on "technicalities" because of due process. Even if you work at McDonalds, I don't think your supervisor should be allowed to discipline you on the basis of anonymous or un-sworn allegations. Just because McDonalds exploits its workers and keeps them from unionizing isn't an excuse to try to strip the same protection from everyone else.

DARPA posted:

The department is treating people reporting issues as the enemy, rather than people they serve.

[citation needed]

# ¿ Dec 18, 2015 00:35

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: America seems a bit fucked up tbh

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.9 (SABB-v2.24.05)
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright ©2024, Jeffrey of YOSPOS