06/03/09 – Will Grigg – The Scott Horton Show

For Antiwar.com, I'm Scott Horton.
This is Antiwar Radio.
Alright, it's time for Will Grigg.
He writes the incredible blog Pro Libertate.
Welcome back to the show, Will.
How are you?
Scott, wonderfully with you.
I'm doing fine.
Alright, now the website is freedominourtime.blogspot.com.
That's correct.
And I've got to tell you, your blog bums me out.
Well, it bums me out to write it, quite frankly.
God, you're just killing me here.
And it's all via simply passing on stories of almost entirely, now I mean obviously it's wide and varied in some degrees, but with a special focus on brutality by local police in this country.
And, geez, it's almost like we're all this whole society now.
We're all blacks in the Jim Crow era with no rights at all.
Or we're all Indians on the reservation circa 1880 or 1890.
That is, of course, a necessary focus right now precisely because that's where the blade hits the neck, so to speak, when you're talking about the actual application of lethal coercion by the government.
People talk in grandiose terms about the prospect of a military takeover or even a takeover by foreign mercenary troops operating through the United Nations or some other multilateral agency.
Those things are vaguely and dimly possible, but what I find to be the ongoing reality is that we're simply seeing the once local police agencies of our country being turned into an army of occupation controlled by a distant central government that really is not much less alien than the United Nations would be.
And this is something which has been going on for decades, but it really accelerated, I think, due to the so-called War on Drugs and, of course, the so-called War on Terror was another catalytic event.
But it's really accelerated dramatically in just the last six or seven years for reasons that should be obvious if you examine the agenda of the Bush administration and the Obama administration picked up seamlessly from its predecessor, unfortunately.
Yeah, well, it seems like all politicians want total power, but they also really have reason to fear, don't they?
They know how bad they've screwed us in this society, how the average working people are no longer able to pay their way, to pay for their health care costs, whatever, their pensions have all been ripped off, all their jobs have been shipped away through the Fed's inflationary policy.
And they know that they're a bunch of basically helpless and hopeless, pissed-off people, and this is only the very beginning of our economic depression.
They've got reason to fear.
They have reason to want to create standing armies of overwhelming force in our neighborhoods, don't they?
Yeah, it's not only the question of militarizing the police.
I did a whole series on Prolibertate under the heading of Rubicon and the Rearview, and, of course, that refers to the crossing of the Rubicon River by Caesar with his army in the inauguration of the Roman Empire, the death of the Roman Republic.
That was, of course, a signal event in the history of that civilization's decline and deterioration.
When we talk about crossing the Rubicon, often you think in terms of military occupation, the establishment of martial law.
Yeah, like General Petraeus declaring himself emperor and keeping his green uniform on.
Exactly.
Or what happened when I was in Guatemala in 1983 when Efrain Rios Montt, who was up until that point a reliable puppet of the CIA, was deemed unreliable and he was thrown out by the military.
And for six or eight months you had undisguised military rule with the people in military blouses making all the decisions and all the political policies came from the military.
You had people in fatigues acting as police on the streets.
That's what most people have in mind when they think about crossing the Rubicon.
I think that we've already crossed the Rubicon in the sense that there's been a change in the mindset and the orientation of police where they no longer see themselves as part of a civilian apparatus that would be designated, for instance, the role of a peace officer.
Now they divide society into their group and civilians.
They refer to the rest of us as civilians.
By default, of course, that means that they're a paramilitary organization and they receive their training and their funding and their equipment from the Pentagon.
And as a matter of fact, if they work through the LESO program, which I've mentioned in previous conversations we've had, Scott, the Law Enforcement Support Organization, which was started by Janet Reno back in 1995 as part of the so-called War on Drugs, if you work through the LESO program you can get from the Pentagon just about anything that the military has to offer that it's not using at the moment and your police department becomes part of the Pentagon.
It is treated as a sub-agency of the Pentagon.
I don't know how much more overtly militarized a police agency could become if the Pentagon recognizes it as an affiliate of the Defense Department.
But that's the position we're in right now.
And the mindset of many local law enforcement officials and their actions in dealing with the public at large, the fact that they expect instant and unqualified obedience from people, all this attests to the fact that there is this martial law mindset which is now in place and the tactics and the materiel used in carrying out the mission of law enforcement now much, much more resembles the routine of an army of occupation rather than a force of peace officers.
I wonder about the changes in training.
Do you know if there was a specific, I mean there's got to be a great article about this or something somewhere where I'm sure the order came down from the federal level probably somewhere in the 1990s that the training has changed.
I mean you hear as the excuse whenever they beat the hell out of some little old lady or whatever that hey, I went by the rule book and I did it exactly like in my training what it said I was supposed to do.
But I remember even when I was a kid, which I guess I'm not that young anymore, but when I was a kid it was always come out with your hands up and it was always the minimum amount of force necessary in order to, you know, if we get back to the roots of this, if you're accused of a crime, Will, the reason that the sheriff arrests you in theory is to protect you from the mob, to protect your rights as a suspect that you'll only be deprived of life and liberty by the rest of us after you get a fair trial.
He's there to protect you, the accused, not to beat the hell out of you, force compliance, use overwhelming force to prevent you from even daring to consider resisting.
Yeah, that's a very good way of living the issue.
I think that it's not well understood that historically, if you take a look at the 19th century, the way that U.S. Marshals behaved, and of course I don't really like the Marshal Service, it's a federal agency, I don't think that it's a constitutionally sound expression of the federal government's delegated powers, but even then, the U.S. Marshals in the 19th century, as people who sort of had a portfolio that made them enforcers at large, their mission was to backstop the local sheriff in the administration of the law and the carrying out of due process precisely to protect people against summary so-called justice by the mob.
And you have story after story that you can read of how sheriffs took great pride in the idea that they would not lose a suspect to the mob, they would not allow them to be lynched until such time, of course, as it was no longer lynching but the carrying out of the consummation of a constitutionally sound application of due process.
They would be convicted by a preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers in a courtroom that was administered in a way that was compatible with law, and then if they were found guilty of a capital crime, the next would be stretched, but they would not be summarily lynched.
There's an interesting story that I'm going to be writing up sometime on my blog from Idaho history involving a vigilante justice where a man who was a partner in a gold mining operation, whose partner was waylaid by highwaymen and killed, this guy tracked the killers down to California along with a handful of other people and brought them back to Idaho so that they could stand trial, and they had to travel several thousand, well not several thousand, but several hundred miles in order to do this, and in town after town, people wanted to lynch these guys, and this guy, while not being a sheriff or a law enforcement officer, risked his life on several occasions to keep the people accused of killing his business partner and friend from being torn to shreds by the mobs so they could stand trial under the established due process procedures.
Now that's the ethic of the peace enforcement, or forgive me, not peace enforcement, that sounds like the U.N. actually, peace enforcement, the peace officer's mindset is that you've got to protect the suspect until they can stand trial, whereas today, of course, they expect instant compliance, and if they don't get instant compliance, the police are in a position now, due to the ubiquity of the taser, to administer summary punishment for noncompliance, in spite of the fact that it's not compatible with the stated rules of any police department.
I've been exposed to every police department, every municipal government supposedly has a rulebook that says that you cannot use a taser for pain compliance.
You can only use it in a situation where the use of a firearm would be justified as an intermediate step so as to prevent the loss of life on the part of the suspect or on the part of any innocent bystander or the police officer himself, but you mentioned this episode here in Austin just recently involving Catherine Leakfein, this 72-year-old grandmother who got a little bit testy in a traffic stop, didn't want to sign the ticket stub, and was tased by the police officer who said that this frail septuagenarian woman threatened him, that she created danger to his person by virtue of her opposition.
That's very much the force protection mindset of a military outfit or somebody who's part of an army of occupation.
You have to protect those who are in a position of being the point of the spear for the army of occupation.
That means that if you encounter resistance, you put down the resistance with as much force as you deem necessary.
I don't know whether that mindset emanates from a discreet, specific directive handed down from Washington.
I'm still looking for it, and if I find it, trust me, I will make sure that people know about it, but I think that you could explain this just as easily by saying that this is the natural result of co-mingling fully militarized tactical and SWAT teams with regular police officers.
They start to adopt the same culture.
They start to gravitate in the direction of the lowest common denominator, which in this case happens to be the militarist mindset, and this is something that really became problematic starting in the early 1990s.
You can go back to the late 1980s, actually, when under Ronald Reagan, there were a lot of exceptions being carved out of posse comitatus as to allow the military not only to train with, but actually to help carry out counter-drug missions within the United States.
A lot of this is just a natural bleed-through of that highly toxic mindset where suddenly the population at large is looked upon as a threat to the officers as opposed to being looked upon as the community of people they're supposed to be serving and protecting.
Well, another thing that goes along with this, too, that can't be ignored is the role of the media.
Again, it's Will Grigg from freedominourtime.blogspot.com.
Yeah, right.
The focus here is on local police and the degree of their federalization, all that is part of the topic, too, but we're not just talking about, as you said, some General Petraeus and his Third Army declaring martial law and taking over the country or something like that.
We're talking about the evolution of all our local police departments into federalized, militarized, standing armies, basically.
I'm pretty new around here, and I try not to watch too much news on TV, but occasionally when Family Guy is over or whatever, they rerun the L.A. local news on the Fox channel here in the middle of the night, and virtually every day it seems like the LAPD or one of the Associated Police Departments in one of these little cities all around here kills somebody, and it's always okay.
It's always presumed that it was all right, and in fact, you know, Will, there was one out in, I think, Pomona last week, maybe two weeks ago, where the kids were playing cops and robbers.
The kid was 12 years old, and they were playing cops and robbers, and he had a plastic gun with the government-mandated orange cap on the end of it so you know it's not really a gun and whatever, and the way they reported it on the news was, well, the cops pulled up, and the kid was riding away on his bike, and then something happened, and then the cops shot him a bunch of times in the back and killed him.
But for the news anchor, it's their own kind of cognitive dissonance.
They don't know how to explain the cop murdered this kid, and yeah, he was wearing a uniform when he did it, but a crime is a crime and a murder is a murder.
He can't even conceive of it that way.
So he just has to kind of make up and build in, well, something happened, and then the cops shot the kid, you know, to make it the kid's fault.
It had to be the kid's fault that the cops shot him over and over again in the back, and I haven't seen the local coverage of the lady being tased in Austin, but I bet you, you know, 7-On-Your-Side, at the end of the day, has a great rationalization why it's really important that the cops are able to do this to us.
You're talking about the fact that there's this presumption of sanctity that inheres to anybody who's issued a government-issued costume and somebody who's given a gun and a positivist license to kill, which is really the situation we're in right now.
That wasn't the mindset that informed law enforcement in the 19th century, really the early 20th century, before so-called professional police forces became commonplace here.
We had sheriffs, we had posses, we occasionally had people interacting with federal marshals, but we didn't have this quasi-militarized, what would have to be considered the embryonic element of an army of occupation built on Bobby Peel's model from London until really the late 19th or early 20th century in most communities here in the United States.
And now the assumption is that anybody who's issued one of these costumes and given permission by the government to kill is somebody who is somehow on an elevated plane above the rest of us, and that there are certain exemptions to the laws that govern the rest of us, and certain policies regarding the use of lethal force that govern the rest of us.
I always ask people, okay, if you take a look at any interaction between the police and somebody who's not charged with a crime, whether you're talking about a traffic stop or mistaken identity, anything of that sort, evaluate the actions of the police officer with an eye to how you would see those actions if they were carried out by any common citizen.
Because in principle, at least in the constitutional republic we are supposed to be, speaking aspirationally of what we are supposed to be, there is no greater authority that inheres in any officer of the law than there is in any citizen.
The difference is that the peace officers have a specialized function that they carry out full-time by way of a vocation.
But the idea is that in a free republic, anybody has the right to bear arms in his own defense, and we delegate to government as that instrument of the mutual exercise of the individual right to self-defense, we delegate to them a certain watchman type of a function that gives them this particular role, but it doesn't give them any authority beyond what we have, quite frankly.
That's how it's supposed to operate, and quite frankly, until about the 1890s, that's how it did in a lot of towns in the United States.
But by way of illustrating and underscoring what you were talking about, Scott, regarding how the media tends to exalt police officers in this fashion, whenever you see a clash involving a police officer and a civilian, for instance what happened in Oklahoma just a couple of days ago, where this clearly irrational state trooper tried to arrest an emergency medical technician who was rushing a patient to the hospital, and got to the point where this guy actually had his hands on the throat of the supervisor, the EMT who was driving that ambulance, and trying to arrest him while they were...basically that's a felony.
One of the EMTs explained to the state trooper very rationally and calmly, you're committing a felony.
You're interfering with the duty of an emergency medical technician in the course of a medical emergency.
That's against the law, and that really pissed the cop off.
That's what caused him to claw at the other guy's throat.
And later on in the hospital, that clearly deranged state trooper was saying that he was very close to pulling his weapon and using lethal force against these unarmed EMTs, because they had refused to submit the way that these people in law enforcement are now trained to expect civilians to submit.
But the way that was depicted in the local media in Oklahoma was typical of the way these episodes are treated.
They talked about it being a fight or a scuffle, or some kind of a mutual exchange of hostilities.
What happened is you had an armed agent, an armed enforcement agent of the state, using violence, the threat of violence, against somebody who was simply objecting to the way that person was behaving.
And time and time again, whenever you see a taser being used or a baton being wielded or somebody being knocked off his feet, blindsided into a wall, left in a coma, that was an episode that just happened a couple of weeks ago in Washington.
Oh, man, I saw that footage.
I try not to click on these YouTubes anymore.
I know.
But the one, and here's what you see in the video.
It's a guy walking, and you don't see the whole thing or whatever.
Honestly, part of the story, I'm sure, as you'll explain, was he was a completely innocent bystander, had nothing to do with anything.
And the cop body checks him.
He's about, what, ten feet from this cinder block wall.
And the way that the cop body checks him, he simply hits the wall with the full force of the blow on his head and his neck.
And did he break his neck?
I don't know if he broke his neck, but he ended up with a severe concussion, and he ended up in a coma.
He's still in the hospital.
This was about six weeks ago that this took place.
Oh, man, that was brutal, because, you know, the guy wasn't even prepared enough to put his hands up at all or anything.
I mean, it's just his head and his neck took all of it.
Yeah.
He ended up with his body flying up against the wall and his head being contorted at an acute angle, hitting the junction between the floor and the wall.
Oh, I wish I didn't have such a visual memory.
After being plowed into by this cop who was about my size, he was about 270 pounds, and he hit him at full speed at the end of his acceleration and flung his arms outward in sort of a double forearm shiver or a hockey-style body check, and this guy ends up in the hospital.
He'd been a perfectly innocent bystander, wrongly suspected of being involved in a robbery or a fistfight earlier that evening.
And the police, in dealing with this thing, well, it was a righteous use of force because this fellow didn't respond to police commands to stop.
I don't know exactly what was going through his head.
Nobody can ask him because, once again, he was in a coma.
He doesn't remember what happened.
Well, and he's simply walking at the time that he gets beaten.
Whether he ran to that position, I guess I can't argue, but at the point that they get him, he's going two miles an hour.
Yeah, he's just walking and striding.
But, once again, the way this is described in the media is that it's a fight.
Anytime the police put their hands violently on a civilian, it's described as a fight.
Very rarely do you actually see somebody fighting back against a police officer, but it's always described as a fight.
It's always described as a scuffle or a melee.
And you end up looking at the video and thinking, well, no, that's not a melee.
What's happening is that an armed civilian is being beaten up by a cop.
That's just one example of what you're talking about.
But the media are full of people who are acculturated into the idea that their job basically is to vindicate the state.
Yeah, that's exactly it.
That's what they are.
They are the ombudsman for the state.
They're not there to protect the people from it.
It's the other way around, just like the whole regulatory state.
It's always the other way around from the way they sell it.
Let me ask you about this, Will.
The federalizing of civil rights violations.
I mean, what we're talking about here basically is, and there are so many occasions, I don't have all the numbers and whatever.
There are so many occasions where local police get away with bloody murder and the locals don't do anything about it.
The local democracy is a joke and the district attorney is never replaced with someone who vows to prosecute cops who assault people or whatever.
That never happens.
And so a lot of times the best hope that people have is they can get the Justice Department to come and prosecute the locals on the federal level for violating their civil rights.
And I guess I wonder whether you think that's counterproductive or what's somebody supposed to do when their local police violate their rights?
Who are they supposed to turn to then?
Well, the problem with going the federal route is that very rarely do you find a federal jury that's willing in any way to take action against any element of the mechanism of the state.
First of all, we need to set aside the convenient fiction, the winsome idea that we actually have a federated republic.
It's a unitary state.
It's a unitary state, elements of which are very amusingly labeled state and local and county functions.
But the states and the counties, the cities are all administrative units of the centrally directed leviathan of Washington.
That's the reality.
That's not the way it should be, but that's what it is.
And usually when you appeal to a federal jury or you're trying to set up a federal prosecution for a civil rights violation, there are two problems with it, the first of which is that that reinforces the centralized control over the nominally local law enforcement body.
You're basically reinforcing the fundamental problem that results in the shifting of the locus of control from the community, the local town or neighborhood, to Washington, D.C., basically.
That's where the federal money comes in, and now you're reinforcing that with federal jurisdiction.
The second problem is that federal juries seem to be specially selected and filled with people who are incredibly deferential to government power.
And usually they're deferential to federal prosecutors, with one notable exception that I found, and that is when federal prosecutors are prosecuting police.
The most recent essay I have up on my blog is about a horrible case that took place in Yonkers, New York, a couple of years ago, where a woman, a 44-year-old woman by the name of Irma Marcus, was body slammed, literally picked up and slammed face first, into the floor at a restaurant.
This happened at the hands of a police officer by the name of Wayne Simoes, who had been called there because there had been some kind of actual scuffle involving some of the patrons.
People had gotten in their cuffs, they'd gotten a little bit disordered.
The police showed up and they were trying to supposedly take care of the affair.
Irma Marcus had a niece who'd been hurt in the brouhaha, so while an EMT was looking at her, Irma Marcus, a healthcare professional herself, tried to get a closer look at what was going on and tried to offer some advice because she was concerned about the well-being of her niece.
She was shoved away by one of the police officers, and then shoved away by another police officer.
There's a videotape of this incident once again.
She ends up complaining about the way she's being treated, and then Simoes comes up to her and gets in her face and does something that we don't know the substance of because it wasn't part of the video record.
She grabs her hand and starts to jack it behind her back because he's going to arrest her for disorderly conduct, which of course is a nonsense offense.
It's a completely open-ended non-crime.
Basically, if they want to put the cuffs on you, that's what they'll accuse you of, is disorderly conduct, which could be nothing.
She pulls her arm away, and so he steps behind her and executes a pretty decent approximation of a Greco-Roman throw that ends up with her face first on the floor and him with his knee in the middle of her back, handcuffing her while she's bleeding into the floor.
Now, this is a 44-year-old woman who ended up with a face that looked as if she had been worked over by Mike Tyson because of the force of the body slam.
A body slam can be a killing blow.
That's something people don't understand.
There are many, many ways you can kill somebody with a body slam.
Of course, this is a case where somebody who is much larger, much stronger, threw her down to the floor and then jumped right on top of her, and while she was down there, she was being arrested for a couple of bogus offenses, they actually prosecuted her after she got out of the hospital on charges of disorderly conduct and interfering with the administration of government functions or some such nonsense.
And that's with the whole thing on video.
You've got to have that.
Exactly.
And she was acquitted of that charge, and a year later, she bowed to the civil rights charge of prosecution, the federal civil rights prosecution against Simoes.
He was just acquitted a week ago.
And it all had to do, once again, with this built-in deference, this media-reinforced servility regarding the use of violent force by police.
The jury was told that there was ambiguity about whether or not he had slipped.
You look at the video, there's no ambiguity about it.
He never lost his footing.
He did exactly what he intended to do.
He picked her up off his feet.
As soon as he did that, he was responsible for whatever happened to her.
And even that was his second story after, Well, she assaulted me, and I had to protect myself.
Well, actually, that's the case of this fellow Abate in Chicago.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was mixing it up.
There's so many of them, I can't keep them straight.
I know, you lose track after a while.
It really is difficult to keep track of them.
But, yeah, the Abate case, that didn't involve a federal prosecution.
He was actually found guilty of felonious assault.
He was an off-duty.
Really?
He was an off-duty.
I knew there was a catch.
It couldn't be that he was convicted of something he did on the clock.
He's got sovereign immunity, like Lon Oriuchi.
Yeah, exactly.
The license to kill, the 007 standard.
But the interesting thing is that just two months ago, a little less than two months ago, there were three off-duty Chicago police officers who got involved in another episode of this sort that was captured on video where they were beating up a group of businessmen.
They were armed at the time, although they were off-duty.
They were acquitted in a bench trial.
They didn't even have a jury trial.
It's probably better for them that they had a bench trial rather than a jury trial.
They were acquitted of felonious assault and several other charges.
They were caught on film not only beating these guys up but also shooing away a group of police that responded.
At one point, one of the victims went outside with his cell phone to call the police, which seems sort of ironic.
Talk about trying to cast out Beelzebub by Beelzebub's power.
But he went out and tried to call the police.
This other police officer went out and grabbed the cell phone out of his hand and shoved him away.
And then when the police showed up, he went out and flashed his badge at them and said, everything's under control, just go.
And actually, I don't know whether that was a good thing or a bad thing because chances are if the police had shown up and had been told by their brethren in arms that they were under siege by these businessmen, something worse would have happened to them.
My initial reaction is that it would have looked bad enough that chances are something bad would have happened to the officers.
I mean, if you'd actually had somebody on hand who was from another precinct or another element of the Chicago police force who saw what was going on, they would have said, well, this obviously doesn't make sense.
We need to find out what actually happened here.
They were trying to control the crime scene for their own benefit.
The people had been involved in instigating an assault.
And Abate was convicted.
And what happened in his case, this gelatinous lump of 290- or 300-pound mound of unpleasantness got drunk in a bar, and this 115-pound woman from Poland, like 22, 23-year-old bartender who had been born and raised in Poland, became upset because he was foul-mouthed and abusive and he was threatening another bar patron.
So she had the temerity to get up and say, okay, you've had enough, you've got to go right now.
She stepped in to protect a male bar patron, which is part of the story that just blows my mind.
He was falling down, staggering, piss-his-pants drunk.
And so in circumstances of that sort, when you're over 300 pounds, not particularly athletic, gravity is your enemy, and he started to lose his footing.
And then if you look at the video, it's pretty clear that she wasn't roughing him up.
She was just putting her hands on him, saying, you've got to go right now.
You don't belong behind the bar.
I've cut you off.
You've had too many drinks.
You've got to go right now.
And he throws her to the floor and then kneels on her and starts basically kicking and beating her while four or five supposed males just sit there and watch without intervening, probably because he'd already identified himself as part of the counter-gang unit for the Chicago Police Department, and they didn't want to start up with him because of what that might entail in the long run.
But she was beaten horribly, and then later on that night she was visited by a couple of Abate's comrades who said, well, you know, we need to do something to make sure that this is taken care of.
So they offered her various inducements and bribes, and when she wouldn't bite on that, they threatened to plant drugs in her car.
They threatened to plant people outside the bar to arrest people coming out for DUI, which, of course, would not be in their business.
I'm sorry.
I've got to interrupt you here.
I could interview you for another hour and a half about this, Will, and the problem is I've got to go because I've got another interview.
I would like to give you a chance at the end here to get to some kind of larger truth or something about where we are in this society, what maybe people could do about it, carry around camcorders or something.
What does it take to get you to imagine that we could actually fix this somehow and get back to come out with your hands up instead of overwhelming lethal force all the time?
Well, in terms of personal practical action, I think it's a worthwhile thing.
If you have the ability to carry a recording cell phone with you, carry one with you at all times, never allow yourself to be put into a position where you're having an interaction with the police that cannot be recorded if you have the means of doing so.
If you have a problem that can be resolved without calling the police, for God's sake, don't call the police.
Don't have any interaction with them at all whatsoever if you can avoid it.
By any means necessary, avoid involvement with the police.
In terms of political action, I think it would be worthwhile.
It would be wonderful.
We're seeing now how a lot of states are passing supposedly radical resolutions asserting their sovereignty, reclaiming their Tenth Amendment powers.
If you have state resolutions repudiating federal aid for law enforcement, it would be wonderful if somewhere in this once free, once republic, a state would enact a measure restoring the right to resist unlawful arrest.
That is a common law right that was recognized in statutes in most of the states until about 1973.
If we were to restore that statute, we could probably eliminate, I'd be willing to bet, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30% of the bogus arrests that are going on and create a counter-incentive for police to throw their weight around.
We need to see some high-profile prosecutions of police administrators who abuse the use of tasers.
There are a number of things that can happen.
That's just a handful of suggestions to give us a starting point.
I've got one, too, which is freedominourtime.blogspot.com.
I don't know any place anywhere on the web, and actually not that this is my specialty, but you want to know about local police abuse.
This is the encyclopedia of it.
It's Will Griggs' great blog, freedominourtime.blogspot.com, pro libertate.
Thanks very much for your time on the show today, Will.
I hope we can do this again soon.
I'd really like to do that, and thank you so much, Scott.
It's always a pleasure.