bureaucracybusters

REAL COPS VS. TV COPS

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on February 13, 2026 at 12:10 am

Lori Tankel had a problem: A lot of angry people thought she was George Zimmerman.            

She began getting death threats on her cellphone after a jury acquitted the would-be police officer on July 13, 2013, of the second-degree murder of black 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. 

Unfortunately for Tankel, her number was one digit away from the number Zimmerman used to make his call to police just before he fatally shot Martin. 

That phone number had been shown throughout the trial. And, believing the number was Zimmerman’s, someone posted Tankel’s number online.

Just minutes after the verdict, Tankel began getting death threats. “We’re going to kill you. We’re going to get you. Watch your back,” threatened a typical call.

George Zimmerman

Tankel worked as a sales representative for several horse companies. She had grown used to relying on her phone to keep her business going.

But, almost as soon as the Zimmerman verdict came in, “My phone just started to blow up. Phone call after phone call, multiple phone calls,” Tankel said.

So she did what any ordinary citizen, faced with multiple death threats, would do: She called the police.

According to her, the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office told her the department itself receives around 400 death threats a minute on social media sites.

In short: Unless you’re wealthy, a politician or—best of all, a cop—don’t expect the police to protect you if your life is threatened.

First, above everyone else, police look out for each other.

Robert Daley bluntly revealed this truth in his 1971 bestseller, Target Blue: An Insider’s View of the N.Y.P.D. A police reporter for the New York Times, he served for one year as a deputy police commissioner.

Related image

“A great many solvable crimes in the city were never solved, because not enough men were assigned to the case, or because those assigned were lazy or hardly cared or got sidetracked,” wrote Daley.

“But when a cop got killed, no other cop got sidetracked. Detectives worked on the case night and day….    

“In effect, the citizen who murdered his wife’s lover was sought by a team of detectives, two men. But he who killed a cop was sought by 32,000.”

That’s why the Mafia tried to bribe cops, but never killed them.

Second, don’t expect the police to do for you what they’ll do for one another.

In February, 2013, Christopher Dorner declared war on his former fellow officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.   

The LAPD assigned security and surveillance details to at least 50 threatened officers and their families. A typical detail consists of two to five or more guards. And those guards must be changed every eight to 12 hours

Christopher Dorner.jpg

Christopher Dorner 

Those details stayed in place long after Dorner was killed in a firefight on February 12, 2013.

But if your bullying neighbor threatens to kill you, don’t expect the police to send a guard detail over. They’ll claim: ”We can’t do anything until the guy does something. If he does, give us a call.”

Third, the more status and wealth you command, the more likely the police are to address your complaint or solve your case.

If you’re rich, your complaint will likely get top priority and the best service the agency can provide. In Boston, such cases are known as “Red balls.”

But if you’re poor or even middle-class without high-level political or police connections, you’ll be told: “We just don’t have the resources to protect everybody.”

Fourth, don’t expect your police department to operate with the vigor or efficiency of TV police agencies.

“I want this rock [Hawaii] sealed off,” Steve McGarrett (Jack Lord) routinely ordered when pursuing criminals on “Hawaii Five-O.”

Jack Lord as Steve McGarrett

Real-life police departments, on the other hand:

  • Often lack state-of-the-art crime labs to analyze evidence.
  • Often lose or accidentally destroy important files.
  • Are—like all bureaucracies—staffed by those who are lazy, indifferent or incompetent.
  • Are notoriously competitive, generally refusing to share information with other police departments-–thus making it easier for criminals to run amok.

Even when police ”solve” a crime, that simply means making an arrest. After that, there are at least three possible outcomes:  

  • The District Attorney may decide not to file charges.
  • The perpetrator may plead to a lesser offense and serve only a token sentence—or none at all.
  • He might be found not guilty by a judge or jury.

Fifth, the result of all this can only be increased disrespect for law enforcement from a deservedly—and increasingly—cynical public.

It is the witnessing of blatant inequities and hypocrisies such as those displayed in the Christopher Dorner case that most damages public support for police at all levels.

When citizens believe police lack the ability—or even the will—to protect them or avenge their victimization, that is a deadly blow to law enforcement.

Police depend on citizens for more than crime tips. 

They depend upon them to support hiring more cops and buying state-of-the-art police equipment.

When public support vanishes, so does much of that public funding.

The result can only be a return to the days of the lawless West, where citizens—as individuals or members of vigilante committees—look only to themselves for protection.

COP: “YOUR PARTNER JUST GAVE YOU UP.” DON’T BELIEVE IT.

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on February 12, 2026 at 12:10 am

Ever heard of “polygraph by copier”?        

If you haven’t, here’s how it works:

A detective loads three sheets of paper into a Xerox machine.

“Truth” has been typed onto the first sheet.

“Truth” has been typed onto the second sheet.

“Lie” has been typed onto the third sheet.

PHOTOCOPIER definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Then a criminal suspect is led into the room and told to put his hand against the side of the machine.

“What is your name?” asks the detective. 

The suspect gives it.

The detective hits the copy button, and a page comes out: “Truth.”

“Where do you live?” asks the detective.

The suspect gives an address, the detective again hits the copy button, and a second page appears: “Truth.”

Then comes the important question: “Did you kill Big Jim Tate on the evening of….?”

The suspect answers. The detective presses the copy button one last time, and the sheet appears: “Lie.”

“Well, well, well, you lying little bastard,” says the detective.

Convinced that the police have found some mysterious way to peer into the darkest recesses of his criminality, the suspect “gives it up” and makes a full confession.

Yes, contrary to what many believe, police can legally use deceit to obtain a confession.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled, in United States v. Russell: “Nor will the mere fact of deceit defeat a prosecution, for there are circumstances when the use of deceit is the only practicable law enforcement technique available.” 

In that case, the Court narrowly upheld a conviction for methamphetamine production even though the defendant had argued entrapment.   

So what types of interrogative deceit might a police officer use to develop admissible evidence of a suspect’s guilt?

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver - Thank you to Tim Meadows, Michael Torpey and Connor Ratliff for starring in our piece on police interrogations! Here they are showing the classic bad

Police interrogation

The general rule is that deception can be used so long as it’s not likely to cause an innocent person to commit a crime or confess to a crime that s/he didn’t commit.

Consider the following examples:

  • A detective is interviewing a suspect in a rape case. “Oh, that girl,” he says, thus implying that the victim was a slut and had it coming. The suspect, thinking he’s dealing with a sympathetic listener, starts bragging about his latest conquest—only to learn, too late, that his listener isn’t so simpatico after all.
  • “We found your prints on the gun”—or on any number of other surfaces.  Actually, there are few good places on a pistol to leave prints. And those that are left can be smeared. The same goes for other surfaces. But if a suspect can be led to believe the cops have his prints, a confession is often forthcoming.
  • A police officer is interrogating a suspect in a murder case. “He came at you, didn’t he?” asks the cop. The suspect, who murdered the victim in cold blood, thinks he has an escape route. “Yeah, he came at me”—this confirming that, yes, he did kill the deceased.
  • “Your partner just gave you up” is a favorite police strategy when there is more than one suspect involved. If one suspect can be made to “flip”—turn–-against the other, the case is essentially wrapped up.

FBI Interrogation Techniques You Can ACTUALLY Use | If you ever find yourself questioning someone you suspect might be guilty, there are a few FBI approved techniques you can use to get

  • Interrogating a bank robbery suspect, a cop might say: “We know you didn’t do the shooting, that you were only the wheelman.” This implies that the penalty for driving the getaway car is far less than that for killing someone during a robbery. In fact, criminal law allows every member of the conspiracy to be charged as a principal. 
  • “I don’t give a damn what you did,” says the detective. “Just tell me why you did it.”  For some suspects, this offers a cathartic release, a chance to justify their guilt.
  • The “good cop/bad cop” routine is known to everyone who has ever seen a police drama. Yet it continues to yield results so often it continues to be routinely used. “Look, I believe you,” says the “good” cop, “but my partner’s a real asshole. Just tell me what happened so we can clear this up and you can go.”
  • “So,” says the detective, “why do you think the police believe you did it?” “I have no idea,” says the suspect, confident that he isn’t giving up anything that might come back to haunt him. “Well,” says the cop, “I guess you’ll just have to make something up.” Make something up sounds easy, but it’s actually a trap. The suspect may end up giving away details that could incriminate him—or lying so brazenly that his lies can be used against him.

So is there a best way for a suspect to deal with an invitation to waive his Miranda right to remain silent?

Yes, there is. It’s to refuse to say anything and to ask for permission to call a lawyer.

That’s the preferred method for Mafia hitmen—and accused police officers.

Any cop who finds himself under investigation by his department’s Internal Affairs unit automatically shuts up—and calls his lawyer.

Contrary to popular belief, an arrestee is allowed to make more than one phone call in most states. 

Any other reason—no matter how well-intentioned—may well result in a lengthy prison sentence.

MACHIAVELLI: HOW TYRANTS ESCAPE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR CRIMES

In Bureaucracy, History, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on February 11, 2026 at 12:10 am

On January 24, 2026, Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old American intensive care nurse for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, was shot multiple times and killed by agents of United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  

Pretti was filming law enforcement agents with his phone attacking Minnesota residents. At one point, he stood between an agent and a woman whom the agent had pushed to the ground, putting his arm around her. 

Pretti reached to wrap his arms around the fallen woman, apparently trying to help her up.

Headshot of a bearded Pretti wearing glasses and smiling against a white background

Alex Pretti

An agent shoved Pretti, and Pretti and the woman fell, still embracing. He was then pepper-sprayed and wrestled to the ground by several federal agents. Both of his arms were pinned down by his head. The agent that pepper-sprayed Pretti hit him with the pepper spray canister multiple times.

Pretti was legally licensed to carry a handgun, and was wearing one in a holster on his hip. An agent removed Pretti’s firearm. Another agent heard someone yell “Gun!” He drew his pistol and shot Pretti at close range.

The shooter was standing behind Pretti and not under direct threat, but fired three more shots into Pretti’s back, as he lay on the pavement with one hand still holding his phone and his other hand holding his glasses. 

The agent who pepper-sprayed Pretti took out his gun and, together with the first shooter, fired six more shots at Pretti as he lay motionless on the ground.

The two agents fired a total of 10 shots in five seconds.

Archivo:Seal of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.png - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

The killing of Alex Pretti ignited a firestorm of anger and horror throughout the country against the Trump administration. Protests were held in Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon, Durham, North Carolina, Oak Park, Illinois, Los Angeles and Boston. 

Arousing even greater fury were inflammatory and slanderous accusations made against Pretti by Trump administration officials.  

“He was there to perpetuate violence, and he was asked to show up and to continue to resist by a governor who’s irresponsible and has a long history of corruption and lying, and we won’t stand for it anymore,” said Secretary of Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. 

Noem did not offer any evidence to back up her slander.

File:Kristi Noem Portrait 2.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Kristi Noem

And White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called Pretti “a domestic terrorist who tried to assassinate law enforcement.” 

Like Noem, Miller did not offer any evidence to support his slander.

Bystander video verified and reviewed by Reuters, the BBC, The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press gave the lie to the Trump administration’s attacks on Pretti

Faced with overwhelming—and video—evidence that Pretti had been shot while helplessly pinned to the ground, Trump officials started backpeddling. 

“I don’t think anybody thinks that they were comparing what happened on Saturday to the legal definition of domestic terrorism,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Fox News.

“I have not heard the president characterize Mr Pretti in that way [as a domestic terrorist]” said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

The ultimate pullback (so far) by the Trump administration was the demotion of Gregory Bovino, commander-at-large of the Border Control in Minneapolis. 

Bovino had become the face of ICE brutality—ICE agents using tear gas against peaceful protesters, battering down a door to enter a house, smashing car windows and dragging people from vehicles.

Bovino had stated that Pretti intended to inflict “maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

On January 26, two days after Pretti’s death, Bovino was dismissed as commander-at-large and returned to El Centro, California.

More than 500 years ago, Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science, outlined how tyrants try to deflect public anger against the agents they appointed.

In Chapter Seven of The Prince, he writes:

“When the duke [Cesare Borgia] occupied the Romagna he found it under the rule of weak masters, who rather plundered their subjects than ruled them, and gave them more cause for disunion than for union.

“The country was full of robbery, quarrels, and every kind of violence; and so, wishing to bring back peace and obedience to authority, he considered it necessary to give it a good governor. Thereupon he promoted Messer Ramiro d’Orco [de Lorqua], a swift and cruel man, to whom he gave the fullest power.

“This man in a short time restored peace and unity with the greatest success. Afterwards the duke considered that it was not advisable to confer such excessive authority, for he had no doubt but that he would become odious.

“And because he knew that the past severity had caused some hatred against himself….he desired to show that, if any cruelty had been practiced, it had not originated with him, but in the natural sternness of the minister.

“Under this pretense he took Ramiro, and one morning caused him to be executed and left on the piazza at Cesena with the block and a bloody knife at his side. The barbarity of this spectacle caused the people to be at once satisfied and dismayed.”

The Trump administration’s pullback proves that what Machiavelli wrote 500 years ago remains entirely relevant today.