Hundreds upon thousands have died at the hands of our police, military and overall government. Most recently, videos of police brutality have finally been surfacing on the internet, as there has been a demand for truth against the ignorance brewing for the last couple hundred of years. With Facebook's new live stream options, people are now eligible to record videos without them being altered or deleted. Through this option, we've seen an increase in evidence supporting the existence and execution of police brutality. Upon seeing hours, over days of footage, it's safe to say that there's a huge problem with our police force abusing power and continuing to serve after said abuse or murder. Men are being completely restrained but still killed; sitting quietly and still shot in front of their daughter; children playing in a sandbox are still gunned down. Families are being torn apart by our officers and judicial system, as the frequent bloodshed of their spouse, daughter and father continues to pour.

"When you ask why such "bad" cops are armed and allowed to patrol the streets, one begins to see that lurking beneath this violence is a fiscal menace."

1. Police should be demanded to only protect and serve by their department.

Too often, there are stories of retired officers coming clean about their departments, which demanding that officers meet a quota of tickets given or even demand that they stay nestled in the highway to look out for people speeding. Now, speeding in some instances is extremely unsafe. However, this consistent demand for patrolling, sitting and watching is enough. Your citizens are not deranged. Targeting people to only meet quotas seems to give way in allowing corrupt individuals to experiment with their personal loathing and engage in slaughter. Requiring productive actions from our police will not only give our police what many have signed up specifically to do, but will help to weed out those who are not equipped to handle the job. Chuck Wexler, a researcher and Executive for police research has found these quotas to drive more hostility and control towards citizens, rather than productivity, as the police often will then see the community as simply profitable, they no longer become lives.

"On the one hand, there is an understandable desire to have productivity from your officers," says Wexler. "But telling them that you want to arrest x number of people, you have to cite x number of people, it just encourages bad performance on the part of officers."

Many police, including former officer Justin Hanners, are speaking out against their former and current departments demands for ticketing and arrest quotas. Many officers join solely to protect and serve their community that they love dearly, and by departments forcing quotas on officers to either make arrests or ticket, tensions between citizens and "authority" will be rather high; the officers will then be acting on a demand to STOP and ARREST random citizens, demanding that they LURK the community, TICKET their vehicles and homes, and REQUIRE that they DO NOT serve and protect on a daily basis.

"I can tell my supervisors that I took three people to the hospital and I saved their lives. That the child that I helped deliver is healthy. I can tell them that. But that's not going to cut it."

Officer Polanco has also spoken out against quota required policing, as it takes away from the protection of citizens and focuses on a revenue driven departments. Officers are often threatened and silence when speaking out against quotas, and are even threatened moreso when

Considering that there is a problem with racism in this country, as mainstream media, Hollywood, and even politics are white washed, it points to the fact that people do, unfortunately, hold a high level of racism. Now, imagine those very same officers who hold stereotypes and are racist, who may not even know it, are then urged to go out and deliberately ticket and arrest citizens, the exact opposite of protecting and serving. That clearly then supports the statistics that show how black and people of color make up 30% of the population, yet 4 out of 6 men of color will be arrested and make up more than 70% of our prisons. That right there shows, the racism is held closely to many of our officers hearts, as less than 10% of crimes charged were violent.

Police are allowed to continue abuse through such profitable departments. Protecting and serving is not rewarded with profits, but evil and injustice are, which is why when police departments bring in almost half of a city's budget, it's clear that injustice is being accepted and used as a means of fiscal attainment. Clearly this gets to be a problem when smaller towns don't have the means to be supported through taxes. However, as a nation, we have the means to ensure a viable economy for all states. There is no need for consistent ticketing and stopping of citizens.

Please note in the graphic how in the years 2013 and 2014, in a span of 28 days, the police gave out 71,451 parking tickets. Although it decreased 53 percent within the last year, probably due to an extreme amount of complaints, it is ridiculous that still 33,307 parking tickets were given out in a 28-day span to begin with. The same force we're supposed to call if we're getting murdered or are in danger should not be the same individuals giving useless tickets to promote selfish city profits. Scribbling on a sheet of paper constantly that just screams a non-verbal "It's money and I need it now!" at your citizens is not protection.

2. Demand knowledge on their morality.

As we all know, police are subjected to various tests before becoming an officer. However, there should be a deeper background and stricter regulations in regards to the person's morale. Although we have not gotten to the age of testing and proving morality, it's obvious that testing such variants is needed.

For some, morality is whether or not someone is homosexual should be able to get married, but for those with logic, morality is: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Now, please correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the police are concerned with the distinction between right and wrong behavior. Seeing as they're there to enforce safety and rule out those committing wrongful acts, they should be held to the same, if not higher, standard.

However, this gets us into the issue of what is right and what is wrong. I believe officers should be there only to promote safety. If an individual is not impeding on anyone else's safety, they should be left alone completely. Whatever an individual is doing to their own persons, after a certain age, should be completely left alone. If their action in no way could directly harm other individuals, they should not be stopped or spoken to. And their suspicion of this person being able to harm others needs to be very strong. There should be requirements for determining this.

There have already been extensive studies done on police psychology, as studies have shown how cognitively many officers engaging in misconduct undergo, since they are so prevalent and known, more should be done to not only asses this after a situation, but to confirm the authenticity of a scenario in comparison with the characteristics of cognitive dissonance.

Decades of empirical research have supported the idea that whenever a person’s behaviors are inconsistent with their attitudes or beliefs, the individual will experience a state of psychological tension—a phenomenon referred to as cognitive dissonance.

Through their cognitive dissonance, officers can convince themselves the lives of the victims do not matter, they convince their psyche that the victims life genuinely did not even truly exist in the first place; Israeli soldiers can be in the same psychological warfare to cope with the murder and terrorism they are currently inflicting on the Palestinian people.

Because this tension is uncomfortable, people will modify any contradictory beliefs or behaviors in ways intended to reduce or eliminate discomfort. Officers can reduce psychological tension by changing one or more of their cognition—that is, by modifying how they think about their actions and the consequences of those behaviors—or by adjusting their activities, attitudes, or beliefs in ways that are consistent with their values and self-image. Generally speaking, an officer will modify the cognition that is least resistant to change, which, in most cases, tends to be the officer’s attitudes, not behaviors.

When are we going to be able to vote on change for our police department? Maybe the first step is ultimately giving more power to people. If this truly is a democracy, giving more power, and far less control to citizens would be genuinely considered by supposed leaders. Oh, wait, I forgot. We can't actually vote or make decisions because it's an authoritarian state, and only those armed with government bullets and titles can make up the rules of our lives like a game. What's up gerrymandering.

3. All drugs need to be legalized.

Now, you might rolling your eyes, but essentially every drug is already legal. Just because the label has a fancy name doesn't mean that the small dose of meth you just fed little Jimmy was healthy for him. Let's not forget Adderall is meth, and it just so happens it's one of the most prescribed medications for children and teens. It seems to me that the government is drug dealing through illnesses or fear of one.

Psychiatrist, Dr. Hart has begun to speak out against the drug: "the public remains almost entirely ignorant of the fact that methamphetamine produces nearly identical effects to those produced by the popular ADHD medication d-amphetamine (dextroamphetamine). You probably know it as Adderall®: a combination of amphetamine and d-amphetamine mixed salts."

Chemotherapy is also a profitable, hazardous cauldron of drugs and is administered to patients suffering from cancer. These doctors who administer the chemotherapy actually sell the 97 percent fail rate death machine to patients at such a large amount that they average a $5K profit from each duration.

Not to mention, we are one of the only countries who do not require our foods to be labeled as genetically modified. That is because almost all commercialized food is genetically modified. Therefore the laws against other drugs are clearly just to target groups of people, since if such a core of our lives is poison and it is defended by legislation to keep the poison in our daily diets; the issue is not safety.. It's obvious that the same legislation that pushes to remove GMO bills are the same voting for the prohibition of drugs. There's no thought towards safety, only profit. Dr. Oz, a heart surgeon, Dr. John H. Boyles, a nose, throat, and ear surgeon, and Dr. Emily Linder, a doctor of nutrition, along with thousands of others have dedicated a multitude of time to study and understand GMOS

As a scientist, I am not that concerned about GMOs themselves, but I am worried about why they were created. Highly toxic herbicides would kill crops unless they were genetically modified, but with the genetic upgrade, these plants can be doused with much higher doses, with potential complications to the environment. The WHO believes that glyphosate is “probably a human carcinogen.” Perhaps we are all showing “disdain for science and evidence-based medicine,” but I would argue that unleashing these products creates a real-time experiment on the human species. Sure, we will eventually know if these pesticides are a problem, but at the expense of the pain and suffering and disease in real people. I owe my kids more. And so do you.

Let people do the drugs they want. Don't lie to patients to make them fearful, and continuously inject your profitable poison into their veins. If the issue is not safety, the prohibition of all other drugs that are administered personally, are clearly just a tactic to target and control citizens. The government makes hefty profits on seizing "illegal" substances, which is actually quite hilarious, because both the police and higher forms of government have deemed a portion of the earth as "illegal." Over 3,500 police officers are speaking out against this wrongful control and are demanding that all drugs be legalized. Former officer, Peter Christ has spoken out on the range of control this creates, and it's hypocrisy. *Again please note how again in another instance, officers are being asked to control, not protect and serve. Why do we need to be controlled?

"So, the question becomes: Who do you want to control the marketplace - gangsters, thugs, and terrorists, or licensed business people with regulation and control? That’s the only discussion we can have, and it’s the one we’re not having.”

This is not genesis. You can't just decide to make something illegal, grow write it in the book, not our legislation. By legalizing all drugs, we give more power to the people. As time as shown, drugs will never disappear, forever and always will people engage in drug use. If the issue is drug use, let's start on fixing education, the environment, systematic racism, mainstream media before we start punishing people for engaging in other drug use than what is accepted and forced on the public.

4. A law that states clearly that citizens are not required to respect authority. A law that states clearly that authority are to respect citizens.

/rəˈspekt/ noun 1.a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

In videos of black men being slaughtered at the hands of police, there is always a "he should have respected the officer in the first place" comment to be found. With recent department actions, or lack thereof, a lack of investigation and care from our judicial system, it's obvious that deep admiration for murder, carelessness and degradation is not likely, or warranted. We, as citizens, do not have any requirement or law forcing us to respect authority, especially with the way recent authority has been acting. There's really no psychological stance that would warrant any appreciation or admiration toward the lack of care and injustice observed by our legal system. Without disrespect, where would the change come from? Through not appreciating, not tolerating and not admiring, we can finally open our eyes to the heinous crimes of government and say enough! We do not have to respect bloodshed.

However, "authority" should be demanded and required to respect citizens. They took an oath and occupation that requires love and care. If they cannot complete the task of protecting and serving, which requires deep admiration for someone or a community, then they should not be officers. They should also not be demanded or required to do anything but protect and serve, as respect is a core foundation for protecting and serving. This is an occupation, they are not Gods, nor mystic men. There is more respect given by McDonald's workers to their customers than by police filling quotas towards our citizens, and this is something that needs to change. The government is providing a service to the citizens, they are not to be our dictators.

I also want to point out that officers, nor any other government, is authority, unless you, the citizen gives them authority. They are authority in a linguistic and delusional sense: Linguistic, because they get a mere title (and no charges!), and delusional, because there are those who put full belief in their supposed power. Why do we continue to allow ill fitting people to make decisions for an entire nation? Through this control and power, millions have lost their lives, it is time to put an end to this control, this need and demand for love, their potential therapy sessions need to stop being projected onto us, the citizens.

5. I am not worth more. End racial profiling.

Stop racial profiling immediately. First, if they were actually racial profiling based on statistics, they would be charging and stopping White christian males, who have made up almost 80 percent of our country's most heinous crimes. However, they are not. They are profiling simply off the notion of racism: the darker the skin, the eviler the individual. In 2016, where science and logic are somewhat appreciated, we shouldn't have to keep explaining that people are not evil, or any type of person for that matter, solely based on their skin color. The only information that could be found based on their skin color is what their skin color is, nothing more.

My skin is white, but I'm not worth more. Racial profiling, though, says that I am. Until we have our entire judicial system being logical, and thus not assuming crime based on skin color, then I will always mean more in the eyes of an officer, a judge, to the media, than that of my melanin-holding neighbors. Everyone who is white or has white skin like me has a responsibility to recognize and condemn your privilege. Too often in the United States, the only people against justice are whites. Too often are the only people in power and with large media access in the United States are white. Too often is mainstream media controlled and brainwashing white citizens to help give strength to their ignorance and complex. White silence is violence.

By ending racial profiling, we tell the government to end racism. We speak out against skin color being used as causation and even mere correlation between crimes. We say no to shooting those like Philando Castile in front of his girlfriend and girlfriend's daughter. We say no to financially supporting ethnic cleansing in Israel. We say no to killing more of our community, both domestic and foreign. By ending racial profiling, we end the terror caused against our own citizens, and those we strip overseas.

A law needs to be put in place protecting people of color, since it's statistically accountable for and documented that their skin color is being used and targeted. In the United States, with increased melanin comes increased risk for losing their lives. End this risk and end racial profiling.

There is no equality and no freedom until we are all free.