All I’m saying is who’s more likely to openly support (and campaign for) such things as warrantless police operations, reduction or elimination of judicial oversight, etc.? Liberals or conservatives?

That depends on who is being warrantlessly searched. If the target of the search is al-Qaeda, then a conservative administration is the one likely to be behind it. But if the target is Princess Diana or some rich Republican she was believed to have the hots for, then what?

I agree that this shouldn’t be a partisan issue, and I also agree that nobody is faultless when the rubber hits the road. But when it comes to talking points, public statements, talking heads, etc., conservatives are orders of magnatude more likely to argue in defense of such tactics than liberals are. That’s all I’m saying.

And as I said at my thread, the easy way to prove me wrong is to show me Democratic and/or liberal-sponsored legislation that would expand police powers and reduce oversight. Or show me liberal Democrats arguing in favor of such things as no-oversight warrantless wiretaps.

Instead, you’ve come up with the stuninng revelation that excessive force incidents tend to happen where there are a lot of people and therefore larger police forces. Thank you Mr. Wizard! (Now, correct that for population and give per capita figures, and then if it’s still wildly out of proportion, I might be impressed.) Never mind the fact that your two shining examples of liberal hot beds are NYC, where Republican leadership has been in place for over a decade (but they’re liberal Republicans, based on the fact that they’re not all Brownback bat-shit crazy!), and Atlanta (the first time I’ve ever heard anyone describe that city as “liberal” — liberal for the South, maybe…).