Slashdot Mirror
Watching the Police: Will Two-Way Surveillance Reduce Crime?
An anonymous reader writes "As surveillance technologies have matured in both their sophistication and usage, some are starting to ask the question: is it time we start using them to watch the watchers? The proliferation of dashboard cameras has reduced liability costs, provided valuable evidence, and made police officers safer. The next progression would naturally be for the camera to move out of the car and onto the officer's uniform itself. In The Verge appears a fascinating report about the company behind the non-lethal stun guns that have become commonplace around the world, Taser International, which has set out to transform policing once again – this time, with Axon Flex, a head-mounted camera with a twelve-hour battery life that officers can use to record interactions. The device is constantly on, but it only captures video of the thirty seconds before its wearer begins using it, and then both video and audio while police are speaking to a citizen. Footage is then uploaded to a cloud-based service where it can be accessed by the police department. It includes an audit trail to reveal who has accessed the information and when."
if 100% of the footage is uploaded/published on a regular basis.
Remove the ability of a department to "lose" the info. Perhaps even send the raw footage to the AFL-CIO
UPS Sucks
There are new non-lethal stun guns gaining popularity around the world? That's great news. The current less-lethal kind kill far too many people.
Tasers are less lethal torture devices mainly used to force compliance.
Right before I beat the fuck out of him he knocked my camera off and it broke. Tough luck there.
The device is constantly on, but it only captures video of the thirty seconds before its wearer begins using it, and then both video and audio while police are speaking to a citizen.
But not when beating the citizen? Or violating his rights?
The imbalance of power does. Giving the cops a headcam should be enough reason not to have to confiscate everyone's phone now.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Ubiquitous surveillance of everyone by everyone is inevitable. Dashcams and google glass are merely the first. Cams will become smaller, batteries will become smaller, internet will become faster, and everyone will automatically store what they see in their cloud of preference.
Finally witness statements, which are proven to be unreliable, can be backed up by actual evidence.
Hurrah for progress.
I've never heard of an officer turning in video to incriminate himself. Any footage that makes them look bad will mysteriously disappear.
When I'm shining my 1000 lumen tactical flashlight at it?
citizen units as well - so police cannot confiscate, cannot delete, always on, always there.
I mean if the Police have nothing to hide, they won't mind, right? Right???
Take this system one step further and then it might actually be useful for helping protect citizens: have the system identify the person the officer is talking to (facial recognition, NFC beacon from my phone, whatever) and when the video is uploaded to the cloud, make it automatically uploaded to the private cloud storage owned by everyone in the video.
Otherwise, the video is likely to "accidentally" disappear when it shows wrongdoing by the police.
Strangely, the scenarios presented were placed 20 years in the future. Posted in 1993, then-revolutionary Wired Magazine got it exactly, dead on. It's almost strange how they were so dead-on as far as the time scale.
Notice all the dash cam footage coming out of the Soviet Union...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I would be less troubled by this if the public had access as well. The police are supposed to be there to serve us, not vice versa. I'm aware that there are privacy concerns (they bust into the wrong house, see naked girl, realize they're in the wrong house, but now naked girl is all over Internet). This needs to be addressed. But the public, and defendants in criminal cases, are both severely disadvantaged if the police and prosecution have access to information that the former do not. And yes, I'm aware of the discovery process and the rules of evidence in federal and most other U.S. jurisdictions, but nothing there prevents the cops or prosecution from "accidentally" losing or even altering evidence to suit their agenda. So my stance is that recording is OK if it is, in some way available, if not to the public, than at least to the press and to defendants in criminal cases.
Nonaggression works!
I've said this for years. I have no problem with all the public-facing cameras, so long as the output from all those cameras is available to the public, preferably directly, in realtime. The cameras then become a public asset. Law enforcement can use them, but so can the rest of us. There's already no expectation of privacy in public places, so I don't see any issues with universal access to the data.
I'd guess it might be necessary to restrict access to police dashcams and "uniform-cams" for a time, but eventually it should all be made public, with review processes in place to make sure that none of it gets "accidentally" deleted.
Any group surveiling the cops shouldn't be selling those cops stuff. "Hey, the XYZ PD just ordered another $500k of merch from us, I think we can 'lose' that embarrassing video."
Taser International is a bunch of evil fuckwads who've made their bankrolls selling lethal electrical torture devices to police. Their irresponsible marketing has lead to an increase in the use of excessive force by cops. My trust in them is zero.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If only the watchers are the only that watches themselves (or that countrol what and who does it) then is a bad answer for that question. When everyone can see what the "watchers" (police, politicians, etc) do, in real time, with no editing, clipping, etc, then things will get a bit fair. But that won't happen soon.
I can see the police unions having a cow over this one. Imagine if you had to wear one of these at your work place knowing that your boss can activate it at any time (I know, the digital radios can be turned on via dispatcher at any time to listen in). I'm sure management (command staff) abusing this to bust someone's chops they don't like. There is something called "officer's discretion" that giving management real time viewing is not going to work for the public's benefit. Yes, might be an excellent tool for the butthead cop to be modified in his actions, it's the Officer Joe BagOfDonuts who cuts breaks is going to have life changed in a big way. It's about activity and revenue generation which management is beating on the line officer to increase so management looks better in very lean budget times.
Another issue is if these head cams are streaming, how much of it is being put into a facial and location db? Do you really want to pull into that 7-11 with officers inside getting coffee with computers running your face through SCIC/NCIC as their headcam steam video your face and maybe voice?
"What? No, I don't know anything about any large magnets scrambling the signal from my headcam... musta been some of those darn kids with their ghetto-blasters..."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Dear Slashdot:
Why do you ask so many questions. Everyday there is article after article of questions.
It use to be that Slashdot had news and it had information and it had answers. Sure, there was the Ask Slashdot post once a week or so, but the rest was information. Now every other article is a banal question.
How did Slashdot get so stupid? Why does Slashdot ask ore questions than a three year old. Please, make it stop!
Love,
AC
This should be available for online viewing for the general public. They are civil servants, after all. What gives the government the right to conceal these recordings from the public? Could we not do it were it an interaction in public? What about a private home? These videos should be uploaded and accessible to the general population. Let it be available to obtain without a warrant, especially if something happens to someone poor in the country. They will have a snowball's chance in hell getting these videos if the police have access to them.
old news. OLD.
Unlikely.. Police unions are pushing to take cameras out of vehicles because they are frequently used against cops.
"It must of got broken and suffered an EMP blast right before I had to shoot that [non-white] guy."
That say if the recording is not made/found, then the court, the prosecutor, the judge must all be directed to assume that the police intentionally erased the recording to hide illegal actions.
I'm all for 2 way accountability, but there may actually be times when they should be turned off. Do we really want to see/listen to some cop using the restroom? Chomping on food during his lunch break?
And what about the times when you may not want conversations with coworkers to be posted publicly? Telling a coworker an off-color joke? Telling a coworker what he did with that lady he met at the bar the other night? Telling the boss he will be out on Friday to help a family member with a medical issue?
And how long before this footage is directly used to make hiring/promotion/firing decisions? Didn't pick up on a clue quick enough on that high profile case? No raise for you.
This issue is who determines when it is on or off, and how to avoid this power being used inappropriately.
These cameras will be recording a lot of people saying, "You'll need to speak with my lawyer." Seriously, you think I'm going to say *anything* to a police officer about *anything* if it is all being recorded?
The most it catches are cops running red lights. Sure, it saved my butt in an insurance claim, but by occurrence it catches cops being bad.
I want to start a blog: copsbehavingbadly which will highlight bad police action caught on camera.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
This is not a trustworthy company. They have combined the strategies of litigation trolls, lobbies, NRA and pharmaceuticals to ensure the success of their mobile cattle prod technology.
I doubt very much that their proposed device would benefit anybody but the least deserving. It is not their nature.
there is an independent body of people who are managing the uploaded videos. For example, each state in the US could have a department where it manages all the feeds for all levels of law enforcement. Then at least, there is a fair chance that the captured footage would be useful in the case of abuse of power.
So I was reading this other political article on slashdot the other day. And these doods were argueing about this very same thing and a bunch of people cited some Canadian study or paper or news report that said... 60% less fatalities from cameras on duty for officers. Meaning the job is a lot safer.
Even if it does not make everyone safer. I think 60% safer for law enforcement is something to consider. That is a lot of incentive to keep doing your job well vs being mad at everyone for screwing you over.
I always thought it would be interesting to run for office on the platform that during my term I will have a camera on me at all times broadcasted live. Unfortunately I belong to the one class of citizens prohibited from running for political office.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Interesting that you mention this. There is a petition on we the people about it. force-all-law-enforcement-officers-wear-uniform-embedded-cameras
I guess we should go back to the old option to subdue an armed violent suspect; guns. I think tazers are a much better option than shooting a person wielding a weapon. Sure tazers have killed people but then so have batons. If you confront police with a weapon you may die. Tazers are much less likely to kill than guns.
Just because Tazer International builds the recording system does not mean that they will run it.
Any group surveiling the cops shouldn't be selling those cops stuff. "Hey, the XYZ PD just ordered another $500k of merch from us, I think we can 'lose' that embarrassing video."
That would be no diferent from destroying any other evidence, which is already a crime (and a farily serious one, for agents of the government). Enforcement is spotty now, and will be equally spotty then, but when the public knows the video exists, its absence will be increasingly damning in and of itself. This is the same reason more and more police departments record all interrogations, from start to finish (though there are more complicated reasons they don't want those videos seen by juries).
If using the recording device is mandatory, losing the recording is the same as not making it. It should be (and will be) a crime. The trick is to make sure that anyone who can delete is resopnsible for making sure that doesn't happen.
...that this will end in a full-scale surveillance war where everyone watches everyone turning us in a society of politically correct stepford smilers?
It's not about the armed violent suspects. It's the unarmed violent suspects, or unarmed not-particularly-violent suspects, or even the armed, non-violent suspects. Tasers aren't used just as an alternative to lethal force, they're used as an alternative to other forms of less-lethal force.
Think about it. You're a little kid. You have just a metal bat. How likely are you to randomly hit someone with it? Not very, right? I mean, it would hurt, and there would be repercussions to hurting someone. Now we'll give you a foam bad. How likely are you to randomly hit someone with it? If you're anything like my nephew, you're going to smack everybody with it as soon as they get into range because, hey, foam bats don't hurt that much, right? Now how about a hard plastic wiffle bat? You're not going to kill someone with it, but you can sure as hell cause some pain by doing it. Swing that around a few times, and you're going to actually hurt people. Not broken bone pain, but you'll raise some welts. You're not going to cause the kind of damage a metal bat would, but you're going to use it a lot more often than you really should.
This is the problem with tasers. They make the Police think they should use them when we as citizens think they shouldn't be using a weapon at all.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
The problem lies in that when the only options were batons and guns, a policeman had to choose carefully and try to do his job. Nowadays? "Told you to stop talking, you wont? TASER'ed". "But your grace, the acused resisted! i had to subdue him"...
Maybe police officers should use their hand to hand combat training to subdue unarmed suspects.
If they cannot do that, maybe they shouldn't be on the force.
Guns are LAST resort
Batons are defence against non fire arms weapons
Tazers are defence against non fire arms weapons
If the suspect has NO weapon, there is no reason to use a tazer.
If the officer is a 4'8" skinny woman... give her a detective or desk job. She shouldn't be responding to calls or walking "the beat".
So long as your footage is instantly available to the public and uncensorable, then maybe? You'd have to have some kind of darknet end to end encrypted publishing system with a public facing interface somewhere. This is a great idea for political freedom the planet over and needs to happen, but currently hasn't yet AFAIK.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
NO.
too fucking right.
expandfairuse.org
If you're pointing a gun at a police officer, they're not going to tase you, they're going to shoot you (with a gun). Tazers are supposed to replace the club or hand-to-hand stuff (for subduing unarmed violent people). They've devolved into just being toys that they can use to fuck with people.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
"If you confront police with a weapon you may die."
Or if you "confront" them with a wallet. Or if you're holding a can of Pepsi. Or if you're minding your own fucking business.
Has been way to long coming.
Major crime episodes in the U.S.A. began within the Police Departments of Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York to name a few (many others).
Keeping each and every Police Officer, particularly the Chief and the 'detachments' i.e. moles from the Mayor's Office would be a step, though costly one, forward.
Let's face the facts. The Police Departments of every major city in the U.S.A. is just a hive of criminals prancing around in blue trousers.
Even when it is bad enough to make the local news and there is a video, nobody is fired or even really punished. It takes some serious stuff for real actions to be taken.
Since the information is NOT public unless something forces the issue, I don't think it will make anybody more stepford. It might improve service and add some stress for a while.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If you are stupid enough to grab for an object in your pocket while a police officer id yelling at you to not move then you may get the Darwin award.
If the suspect has NO weapon, there is no reason to use a tazer.
I guess you have never encountered someone who is immune to pain due to drugs, psychosis, etc. Sorry but every officer can't be expected to best a 300 pound steroid enhanced boxer on meth. Blanket statements like that always have exceptions. By your standard all police officers should be heavy weight wrestlers. Sorry but there is not enough of them to go around. Even if you are a heavy weight wrestler you are going to take a lot of damage in a real fight.
Weapons include knives, clubs, broken bottles, etc.. All of which an officer does not want to get within range of or they may die. By the way the lethal range of a knife wielding person is 20 to 30 feet. They can be on the officer before he has time to draw and shoot. Do some officers misuse tazers? Yes and they need to be punished for that. That does not mean they should be taken away from all officers.
And a lot more people died of bullet wounds. I believe that tazer discharges should be dealt with the same scrutiny as pistol discharges. The officer has to justify the use. In my opinion "He called me 'pig'." is not a valid reason to taze someone.
Batons are defence against non fire arms weapons
Are you serious? Would you go up against someone with a knife, machete, or ax armed only with a baton? You would be asking to die or be seriously injured.
This is the problem with tasers. They make the Police think they should use them when we as citizens think they shouldn't be using a weapon at all.
We as citizens do not put our lives on the line every day dealing with people who have no respect for their lives or the lives of others. We were not there in the situation and we have the calm detachment and the time to make the exact correct decision. We were not in a situation similar to one that got a friend seriously injured or killed just last week. Armchair quarterbacking is very rarely helpful.
Are tazers used too often? Yes and the people who misuse them need to be punished. Are tazers used to save lives; officer and suspect alike? Yes and they should be available to continue to do that.
the device looks very similar to the looxcie . Except someone has removed the record light to let people know it's on, increased the battery life and priced it for the government market. It even has a similar 30 second feature.
Good point. I hadn't considered knives, etc. Don't mistake my comment, I'm not disagreeing with police having a need for tazers. While there's a chance of death from normal tazer usage, a violent suspect will fare much better after being subdued with a tazer than a club (or a gun). I'm just disappointed that the police can't be a little more mature in their interactions with the public.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Or something like it. Little camera mounted on shoulder. They push a button and start recording.
Talking to one who has said the thing they hate about it is they can't be nice guys anymore. See a dog off the leash, start recording (required in case the dog bites anyone), snag the dog, owner comes running up explaining that the dog saw a rabbit and jumped out of the car, used to be you let them go, now you have to issue a ticket.
We as citizens do not put our lives on the line every day dealing with people who have no respect for their lives or the lives of others.
While it's true that we citizens do not deal with police every day we do deal with them on occassion and for those occassions we should be in a position to tazer them or even shoot them to defend ourselves against what are generally the most violent and dangerous sociopaths we are ever likely to encounter in our lives.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
That may be your opinion but I don't think that opinion is shared by most cops. They appear to mainly use it as a compliance enforcement tool and as a fun torture device. Having said that, I would much rather be tazed than beaten or strangled or just murdered none of which require any weapons at all. If the sadistic sociopath can get off by torturing you with electricity instead of bashing your head in with a stick or putting you in a choke hold until you die of hypoxia it might save some innocent lives. There probably are certain cops who find the satisfaction of electrical torture to be enough and don't need to inflict permanent damage in order to feel better about being disrespected or looked at the wrong way or being challenged by a citizen thinking they have "rights" or whatever set them off. The price for that of course is a lot of citizens getting tortured by borderline sociopathic sadists who may not have become violent at all if it hadn't been for that little toy on their belt.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
That cuts both ways; I wish the public could be a little more mature in their interactions with the police.
Excellent turnaround and blatant generalization. So you are calling every police officer a violent and dangerous sociopath. Interesting view.
Do you have a degree in psychology? It is interesting that you can diagnose thousand of people you never met based on the highly publicized actions of a minority.
That cuts both ways; I wish the public could be a little more mature in their interactions with the police.
Now I have to disagree. When a member of the public is being childish, it usually only leads to to the policeman having a bruised ego. If only the misbehaving policemen were content with bruising egos.
Or less subtly, being rude or disrespectful to the police does not justify being tased or beaten. Abusing one's authority and physically attacking someone for petty verbal insults is a vastly greater offense. "With great power..." and all of that.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
We as citizens do not put our lives on the line every day dealing with people who have no respect for their lives or the lives of others.
And they get paid to do it. That doesn't give them the right to attack innocent people and lie about the facts. Just because firemen might die in a fire, does that give them the right to kill people they interact with?
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
That cuts both ways; I wish the public could be a little more mature in their interactions with the police.
The police are paid to do their job, the public isn't. If they can't handle it, then they should not be in that position.
We have more and more video evidence of police abusing and murdering innocent people. That is not because there are more murdering police, it's because cameras are becoming more common. The police force is the most likely criminal organization that any typical person will ever encounter. Most people will not come in contact with true criminals, but they will come into contact with the police. You can't tell me there are only a few "bad apples" as each officer will require the assistance of their coworkers and that means they need to be a part of the group. You can't go around turning in all the other officers and expect them to back you up when you need it. You need to look the other way. That makes them bad cops also. Until each and every misdeed by an officer is appropriately punished, then the force deserves no respect as they don't respect the law. They feel they are above the law.
When I hear of news reports of police being shot, I think it's a good thing. Less police means less criminals. I root for the cop killer as they are doing society a good deed. How's that for the reputation our current police force has gotten?
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
When a member of the public is being childish, it usually only leads to to the policeman having a bruised ego.
Or black eye, knife in the chest, etc. When some hopped up drunk idiot would rather mouth off in hopes of impressing his friends than not back off there may be a reason to use force. You are taking the extreme cases and viewing them as the rule. There is something wrong when the standard response to an officer saying "please step back" is "Fuck you".
If you were an officer facing an aggressive person would you wait for him to pull a knife or would you taze him?
What I was trying to get across is that most people have never been in the situation where they could be killed by someone else and have no right to judge.
Firemen do not have people threatening them every day. They don't have colleagues who have been killed by "unarmed" aggressive people. Every interaction with the public has the possibility of becoming a life and death situation. There have been many instances where a simple traffic stop has escalated into a gun battle. Do i think the some police abuse their power? Yes. DO I think that all police abuse their power? No.
Most people will not come in contact with true criminals, but they will come into contact with the police.
Most of those interactions will end with the officer saying "have a nice day". There is a problem with publicity. With YouTube a single incident can now be seen by millions of people. When we used to hear about incidents that only happened locally now we hear about almost every one that happens all across the country. This leads to the perception that it is getting out of hand. It is the same issue with child abduction. Due to the nationwide publicity of so many stranger abductions there is an impression that the issue is on the rise when the rates have actually fallen.
They feel they are above the law.
Excellent generalization. So according to you if every officer is not perfect that all officers are criminals. Sorry but I don't buy that.
How's that for the reputation our current police force has gotten?
When your car is stolen or a loved one killed who are you going to call? Where would the world be without police? Sorry but Thunderdome is not the society I want to live in.
When a member of the public is being childish, it usually only leads to to the policeman having a bruised ego.
Or black eye, knife in the chest, etc. When some hopped up drunk idiot would rather mouth off in hopes of impressing his friends than not back off there may be a reason to use force. You are taking the extreme cases and viewing them as the rule. There is something wrong when the standard response to an officer saying "please step back" is "Fuck you".
If you were an officer facing an aggressive person would you wait for him to pull a knife or would you taze him?
Attacking a police officer is a crime, full stop. If someone is about to use force, of course an officer can defend himself. Saying "fuck you" is not a credible threat, though, and doesn't warrant the use of force. The reason police don't get respect much is because their profession has a long history of not being respectable. This didn't come out of nowhere. They earned this reputation by beginning every single interaction with the public by framing the other citizen as an enemy and proceeding to treat him as such.
Of course on the other hand, a police officer attacking another citizen is never a crime (unless another non-police citizen managed to get video evidence). If you have legal authority to use force on other citizens (a special privilege), you should have the restraint to not instantly jump to violence just because someone is not being compliant. If you can't interact with another person without resorting to violence and your skin is so thin that simple disrespect makes your blood boil, then you are not suitable as a police officer. This society would be a much better place with fewer armed sociopathic thugs (even the ones with badges).
As to that being the extreme case, police brutality and intimidation should never exist. When a policeman is guilty of the above, the other "good" cops shouldn't attempt to cover up the incident. The fact that it is a rare but very real phenomenon, and that police departments basically condone it, means it should be part of the discussion. A systemic problem like that doesn't get to be brushed under the rug as "a few bad apples" so easily.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Here's something I haven't yet seen anyone comment on and that is: police radios are in use and citizens have had the ability and opportunity to listen in on those transmissions. Nobody really raised a fuss about that, but then when cell phones became prevalent, the cops now all use their cell phones to talk to each other and now have the ability to have private conversations. With lapel cameras/recorders, citizens once again will have the ability to listen in on police conversations.
In some ways, I like this idea, because it helps to expose the shitty way many cops think and talk about us helpless peons.
The problem I see is that when a silent alarm gets triggered, for example, the codes go out via the computers that are installed in police cars which means that the cameras might be able to pick up on this information, and if bad guys are watching these streams in realtime, there goes one legitimate use of privacy that the cops have.
Just some thoughts.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
You routinely keep cans of Pepsi in your pockets?
Excellent generalization. So according to you if every officer is not perfect that all officers are criminals. Sorry but I don't buy that.
If the police don't weed out their criminals, then they are a gang of criminals. If you cover for someone doing something wrong, then you cannot claim to be just and moral. I rarely see a cop car driving the speed limit. If they don't have their lights on then they are breaking the law when they speed. If you feel they should be above the law, then I disagree with you. They are supposed to uphold the law, but that doesn't make them above it.
When your car is stolen or a loved one killed who are you going to call? Where would the world be without police?
This sounds like the same victim attitude of the "get rid of all the guns" people. If your car is stolen, it's still stolen even after the police show up. If your loved one is killed, they are just as dead after the police show up to fill out their paperwork and maybe catch the "perp" after the fact.
Over time the police has shifted from a public servant that is there to help people, including the victims of car theft or families of murders, to the role of crime fighter. That shift was pushed by the politicians and the tough on crime stance. It has led the police to see all people as potential criminals. They just need to find something to bust you for. It's an "us against them" attitude and it does not lead to a healthy relationship between the force and the citizens.
Pretty much all of my interactions with police have been just fine. I don't give them attitude and they don't seem to harass me. That does not mean they aren't criminals or horrible people. I have watched them lie to me as they pull me over. I just sit there and don't argue as they can do whatever they want. They chose a job where they would have power over others. If they actually cared about helping people they would not be able to stomach the job. I talked a lot with a chicago beat cop who loved interacting with the public and talking to people. He hated the job as you only see the worst parts of society. I don't see how a good person could stand that without getting ulcers or having to quit eventually. And when the people you work with are breaking the law, you either have to turn them in and ostracize yourself or you let it slide and begin the slippery slope to yourself becoming like the rest. There's not enough accountability for the force as a whole to be good. And with the politicians using the police force as their armed muscle it only makes the situation worse.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
What does Pepsi have to do with anything?
1-800-PHONICS.
it get's wasted
"gets".