20 votes

Ron Paul Institute: Licensed to Kill: The Growing Phenomenon of Police Shooting Unarmed Citizens

"Hence, it is no longer unusual to hear about an incident in which police shoot unarmed individuals first and ask questions later. This is becoming all too common. For example, on September 14th alone, there were two separate police shootings of unarmed individuals, resulting in death and/or injury to innocent individuals—and those are just the shootings that happened to make national headlines."

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Can someone help me out with a few thoughts here?

After 9/11, a special police/military unit was set up, I think, as a force against "domestic terrorism". I can't remember what it was called.
I'm sketchy on the facts, but I think (I'm not sure) that they are Military Trained.
Are these hostile and brutish Cops coming from there?
Was this post 9/11 force connected to anything to do with Cheney's private "security"?
Any information would be appreciated.
Thank you.

How Many Police are Ex-Military?

People who desire a uniform are frequently in search of power (for good or ill). Given our recent history, I would think all our military and paramilitary (police) groups have many individuals who have been taught to take lives, kill or be killed.

Even unarmed civilians are considered threats to be droned.

Studies have shown that societies with a death penalty have higher murder rates. I assume the same is true of societies that are at continual war.

Either life is precious or it's cheap.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Studies on Death Penalties are bias

Id like to see a study done on societies w/ death penalty involving non-tyranical governments.

Chances our its only ours, and ours is still biased against minorities.

I disagree completely with no death penalties though. I think they should only be used for violent crimes, or crimes that lead to the harming of another.

A timed prison sentence should only be optional for those who can be rehabilitated into society.

Even with no death penalties, cases will still result in life in prison sentences, and is the same as death penalty IMO, except we have to foot the bill to keep them alive. Not a worthy cause for someone that can't be rehabilitated.

If I cannot trust the state

how can I agree to their use of this penalty?


Wouldn't their use of the death penalty rely on a jury of peers? And even their decision can be appealed right? At least I thought so. I totally agree with the use of the death penalty on crimes that are without a doubt proven to be the suspect committing the crime if that crime is bad enough.

Maybe there'd be a few less murderers and thieves out there if they actually had something to be scared of. We really don't have enough cause and effect in today's world. You steal and are barely punished, you sit on your fat lazy ass and are rewarded with food stamps, section 8 and an obombya phone, you work your ass off and get over half the wealth you create stolen from you.

The state

will play fair, now?

"we cant make threats that

"we cant make threats that are hollow"......nobody will listen, have to make folks see we're serious, what better way, then to judge a persons worth to their life, like some god like being, using a persons life to send everyone else, other then the target of course, a message.
Killing is quite usefull in sending a message,

USA, spreading the shit out of "democracy"...



This is bothersome:

"Yet as I point out in my new book,A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, this is what happens when you go from a representative democracy in which all members are subject to the rule of law to a hierarchical one in which there is one set of laws for the rulers and another, far more stringent set, for the ruled..."

People thinking the United States is a representative democracy is a reason why we find ourselves in this mess.