Not true at all. If I witness Bob murder Tom, I know Bob murdered Tom. If, however, Bob manages to destroy all physical evidence of murdering Tom, convicting him can't be done on my word alone.

There are many cases where it is well-known that someone is a criminal, and yet they are not prosecuted for lack of admissible evidence.

Anyone with enough money to build a private, self-contained floating city has enough money to not worry about the cost of securing it against most any attack short of that launched by a national military force.

It seems the largest part of the communication problem when talking about libertarian ideas is the misconception that "libertarian" means "no government." There are those who attach themselves to libertarian causes who would like to see "no government," but a libertarian government would exist with the mandate to protect people from exactly the sorts of things you just questioned.

Being against the initiation of force is not, in any way, the same as being against all uses of force at all times.

That's also the description of every other system of government once put into practice.

9th & 10th Amendments. Unless it's a power granted to the Federal Government, or reserved by a State, it's a right retained by the people.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that even the most tenuous, indirect link to interstate commerce creates Federal jurisdiction, which means only those rights specifically enumerated are actually protected in their eyes.

You are obviously a part of Satan's cabal, attempting to spread his grip to God-fearing communities through the insanity-inducing devil-weed known as marajawana...

It wouldn't be if "virtual" and "trash free" were both meant to describe the setup independently of each other. Since "virtually" actually describes "trash free," the usage is correct. If you're going to be a pedant, at least be a correct pedant.

They could let those Ay-rab beans in? We need comprehensive K-cup reform or the terrorist coffee farmers will win!

Once they invest in a type of generation facility, they have a vested interest in protecting the fuel source for that generation facility. Sure, a power company may not care which generation source is cheapest when they start building, but once they've built they care very much about maintaining their profit margins.

Cross country in an MRAP? That's an amusing mental image.

You're not going to win a high-speed chase driving an MRAP. As officers don't receive training in how to properly operate them, they're actually more likely to injure themselves by rolling one over than to ever have a legitimate law enforcement use for one.

MRAPs are expensive, they chew up roads, and they roll over at the drop of a hat. They are useful for one thing: protecting the occupants from explosive devices.

I actually have never heard of a case of someone throwing pipe bombs at police in pursuit. I would be quite interested in reading more about the incident.

Pretty much the only case one would have been useful was the LA bank robbery. That single incident, never repeated, has been used to justify some of the most breathtaking overreach by law enforcement ever documented.

I didn't look closely at the data so all of them could be wrong, but a number of posts here reference the transfer of M60s, which are machine guns.

No shit. The pictures from Ferguson make anyone with the slightest modicum of weapons training cringe. A cop pointing a firearm anywhere other than at the ground unless actually making a high-risk search or arrest (or at the range, or other such circumstances for the pedant mouth-breathers) should be grounds for immediate dismissal, along with a lifetime ban from law enforcement employment.

The "Us vs. Them" mentality is certainly going to make policing less safe as they start crossing lines with the wrong people. Riots like Ferguson are the perfect cover to start taking long-range shots with very high caliber weapons at police, with zero fear of being discovered. Places that focus on community policing rarely have to worry about police being targeted. Why? Because they act like decent human beings, and there isn't a culture of egotistical men-children who think stroking automatic weapons purchased with money they stole from someone using civil asset forfeiture makes them God's gift to whoever the fuck they think they should be God's gift to.

The number of cops killed in the line of duty is a rounding error when it comes to dangerous professions. They're not heroes. They don't "deserve" special status. They joined up, they agreed to the pay and the risk. People dislike the police because the police clearly believe they are above the law. The explosion of personal video recording devices is just now making it clear how out-of-control they are.