Case in point: He claims that a policy of, uh, actually enforcing the law, which, by his lights, is a targeting of oppressed minorities, will work at ‘cross purposes’ to the goal of recruiting minority officers. So wait. Is he claiming that we stand the risk of alienating potential cops by pulling them over for driving cars that are mobile infractions of law? Is that our new candidate pool? People who can’t keep their headlights and taillights working and yet drive around anyway? Is it that potential recruits will see this and somehow think worse of the occupying force, oops!, I mean the police? We’re going to spoil the applicant pool by actually showing them what happens when you drive a car that is out of compliance with the law? And these are the people we want with guns and badges? What utter gibberish!

And his innuendo that the matter hasn’t been litigated would be laughable coming from an eleven year old. Lots of things don’t get ‘litigated’ because there are no cases to litigate. Why? Because there’s no legitimate grounds for litigation! I could say the same about my neighbor’s house color: ‘Well the legality of that particular color hasn’t been litigated’ (spoken with sufficient faux gravity and the kind of airs that children put on when trying to mimic adults). The Berkeley Daily Planet! Hahahahahahahahaha!