'Without Police, There Is Chaos': Trump Signs Police Reform Executive Order

It does not touch qualified immunity or police unions.


President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order on police reform in the wake of protests surrounding the death of George Floyd, the unarmed man killed by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin.

"Americans know the truth," the president said in a speech early Tuesday afternoon. "Without police there is chaos, without law there is anarchy, and without safety there is catastrophe."

Trump's executive order has three components: using financial incentives to encourage that officers are trained and credentialed in the proper use of force, compiling a national database of police officers with multiple misconduct claims, and forming co-responder programs between police departments, social workers, and medical professionals to better address issues like addiction and homelessness. It would also ban chokeholds unless the officer's life is at risk.

"This reform is very impactful because it's all focused on community policing," a senior Trump administration official said on a Monday call with members of the press, noting that the administration also hopes to encourage states and localities to recruit more police officers from the communities in which they serve. "We know that, in certain areas, the police have been dis-incentivized to stay in the car and not walk the beat, and that's made communities less safe. And so what we want to do is thread the needle on having more cops, community police, but at the same time, build trust with the community."

The executive order does not address issues like qualified immunity and police unions, which largely shield police officers from accountability.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany called ending qualified immunity a "non-starter" after Attorney General Bill Barr expressed his disdain for the idea. The legal doctrine protects government officials from being sued over rights violations if the scenario in which the officials violated a person's rights was not outlined with razor-like precision by a preexisting court precedent. Theoretically, it safeguards civil servants from silly lawsuits. As a practical matter, however, it has protected a host of abusive conduct from civil litigation, such as stealing $225,000, shooting a child, siccing a dog on a surrendered suspect, and assaulting and arresting a man for standing outside of his own house.

Police unions have similarly come under fire as institutions that protect cops at the expense of the people that they swear to protect and serve. Consider the case of Eric Garner, who died after being placed in a chokehold by former New York City police officer Daniel Pantaleo. Garner's last words, captured on video, were, "I can't breathe." 

The city's police union chose not to condemn Pantaleo's actions, which were ruled to be a violation of protocol by a police administrative judge, but instead defended him, calling the ruling against him and his subsequent termination a sad result of "anti-police extremists." 

A senior Trump administration official said on yesterday's press call that issues of accountability will be solved with the credentialing aspect of the president's executive order. "I mean, there's so many different police departments around the country that could've done a better job if they just took the time on the front end with doing the credentialing," the official said. "We're, of course, going to put some incentive in place by rewarding police officers and police departments that do the right thing.  But we think there is certainly some accountability from local leaders to help us do this."

The White House's reform package comes as several police reform bills float around Congress. Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) introduced the Ending Qualified Immunity Act with Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D–Mass.), a bill which has gained tripartisan support in the House of Representatives. House Democrats unveiled their own bill that would end qualified immunity, ban police chokeholds, prohibit no-knock raids in drug cases, curtail the transfer of military equipment to state and local police departments, and require bias training for departments that want to receive federal funds. And Senate Republicans have their own legislation in the works. That bill looks much like Trump's executive order, as it emphasizes training police officers in de-escalation tactics, reporting incidents of police violence to the Department of Justice, and restricting the use of chokeholds.

NEXT: Matt Boermeester, a USC Football Player Who Was Expelled After an Unfair Title IX Investigation, Wins in Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >Justin Amash
    >Ayanna Pressley
    Hard pass

    1. Ayanna Pressley? 50,000,000 proggie morons can’t be wrong.

      1. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

        This is what I do……… Buzz Cash

  2. >>… unless the officer’s life is at risk.

    qualifiers are how guys get shot in the back at Wendy’s

    1. Aiming a weapon at an officer you mean.

      1. did he though? or was he like 55 degrees north of aim?

      2. He did aim at the officer and that’s what will be used to justify the shooting but he had already turned around and resumed running away when he was shot.

        1. kewl and listen I’m no cop so what do I know I”m just “if you’re gonna shoot a guy in the back and claim your life was at risk the situation should be broken down to specifics like was your life literally at risk”

          1. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website.. Reading Articles

        2. No, justification of the use of lethal force requires a current or ongoing thread. A threat that has ended can not justify the use of lethal force.

          1. What if the suspect is uppity? Or doesn’t eat as many donuts as the brave and heroic Republican Platform eulogized First Responder? Is the cop to blame for being to lazy to run after a suspect carrying a toy torture gun and shooting him in the back instead? Does this scene seem familiar to other Reason subscribers?

        3. Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and ecarning from this job are just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this link and vist tabs( Home, Media, Tech ) for more details thanks…… SeeMore here

      3. It is a non lethal weapon. Most are shot in the back while running away. Pisses off the cops when you don’t do what they tell you to do. Disobey a cop and you get your face smashed in the pavement or executed, especially if you are black.
        Saw one young kid (white) on youtube whose only crime was marijuana possession. He decided to take off. The cop was off to the side of his car and you could see the kid clearly turned the car away from the cop to avoid hitting him. But the pissed off cop unloaded on him anyway..killing him, over drug possession? Cop later claimed (lied) the kid was trying to hit him.
        About 55 to 60 cops die from getting shot per year. About 1200 people are killed by cops per year. More farmers die in farm accident than cops do on the job. The unreal, make believe drama of TV cop shows have put on a mistique on cops, painting them as super heros when in fact most of the time they are issuing phony traffic violations to the poor, who can’t defend themselves and who can’t afford to pay and end up with fines. They always make more money on the poor. The war on drugs is phony, they go after young blacks who only have a few ounces or small time free lance pushers, who undersell the established pushers, the ones who pay protection money to cops and judges. So they have to be taken off the streets. There is an endless supply of illegal drugs just as there was an endless supply of booze during prohibition. Drugs have been made illegal so as to derive a huge profit. If legalized, it would cost less than a head of lettuce.

    2. The career criminal who beat up a young pregnant woman and pointed a gun at her belly threatening to shoot her pointed a tazer at the cop you subhuman piece of human offal.

      1. if words set you off so hard maybe the internets aren’t for you?

        1. Did you just brutally trigger poor little Brayfart8850? He’s explaining how the Fugitive Slave Act and race suicide make it OK to to shoot some people in the back, and you won’t listen! That’s insensitive.

    3. IN THE BACK

      1. Do we have a new set of paid trolls? Or just new handles?

        Remember when Reason had a commentariate full of well-informed libertarians who understood the many aspects of criminal justice reform? Remember when we had discussions that at least acknowledged the reality of what the events in question were?

        1. I remember the days of rational exchange of somewhat reasonable arguments… but that’s because I’m over educated and an old fart. ????

    4. Hi if you want to win iphone11 check this amazing link… https://winphone11.com

  3. It does not touch qualified immunity or police unions.

    He’d probably veto anything that does, but where exactly is his authority to touch either?

    1. Really sounds like something Congress, and ideally state legislatures, should be addressing. Or Governors if a statement from the relevant Executive Branch leader is required.

      Better than nothing, I guess, even if it’s outside a President’s Constitutional authority.

    2. Where exactly is his authority to force local and state government to create co-responder programs for social workers? Can all the federal politicians please stop jumping in front of the camera and pretending like they have standing to handle any of these issues that are almost exclusively at the state and local level just to pander during an election year? Watching our “leaders” run around like 8 year-olds playing superheros who just get to declare they have every superpower they can think of is quite frankly embarrassing.

      1. He isn’t forcing them to, he is giving them incentives to do it.

    3. With qualified immunity, it’s just the veto power that Trump wields, nothing more. Congress (or individual states) has to drive a fix for the problem.

      The Supreme Court just ducked several qualified immunity cases, so they clearly aren’t going to do anything.

      1. Is this even something that congress can fix?

        The supremes kind of made it up from whole cloth in the first place. So is a law enough to countermand that? Not being an expert in the jurisprudence that underlies the initial QI standard or the later shift to this bizarre new form of QI where there has to be an exact match in a court case before police can be held accountable, I don’t know enough to know if it would take an amendment to the constitution to reverse them.

        1. There was a huge conversation about this the other day, but I’m not where I can find it right now. But you can look thru the last few days blog posts here about QI.

        2. The TLDR is Congress can fix it by adding clarifying language about their intent. The Supreme Court left the door open for them to do so.

          1. The fact that they are currently holding on to it 9-1…. even on the “they stole a quarter million dollars” case… makes me question the accuracy of that consensus.

  4. ‘Things have gotten ugly’ — pandemic pushback drives health directors to quit

    “Things have gotten ugly,” said one Northern California health officer who asked not to be named over personal safety concerns. “The health officers are kind of in this position where everything that everyone is angry about is the health officer’s fault.”

    The official described death threats received by email and on social media as well as protesters showing up to their home. “It … makes you feel that there is nowhere that’s safe.”

    1. Gosh, a statist slaver feels threatened. Wotta shame, a down dirty shame.

    2. If only California had not banned the second amendment – – – – – – – –

    3. “They are not elected officials…”

      “… [they] have legal authority to shut down businesses, order millions of people to stay at home, isolate or quarantine people, even order mass evacuations. ”

      I think I see a problem

    4. Perhaps the “protests we agree with are OK” advice they provided was a bad idea. Fuck them. I just want to cough on nurses and doctors for shits and giggles.

  5. From a civil libertarian point of view, this is weak sauce, but I’m curious if there is enough concern from within his base for real reform, or is this just a conciliatory measure?

    Certainly not enough to discourage even a sizable chunk of protestors, so what was the point?

    1. He has acted within the limits of his authority; congress still has their collective thumb up it.

      1. He is the leader of the GOP and will very likely be directing a large share of their efforts, to which this shows which way the wind is blowing.

        Signing statements are essentially worthless, but if this is what the GOP has in mind, again, what is the point?

        1. The only alternative to totalitarian Marxists

          1. I’ll take this as there isn’t a lot of demand for reform on the right.

            Fair enough.

            However, if the argument is the lessor of two bastards, Trump isn’t giving the civil libertarians much cause to vote for him or at least stay home instead of voting for someone else.

            As Coulter put it with immigration, this is a political win that is just lying on the table, and a terrible miscalculation that some congressional seats won’t take up the cause.

            1. Thank you for demonstrating my post from this morning’s roundup.
              So useful.
              But sure, let’s think about having a detailed and nuanced discussion of policing policies while leftists burn the house down around us.
              We can always put the fire out later, right?

            2. You’re not wrong. The primary motivation to vote for Trump isn’t that he’s such a strong civil libertarian, it’s that the alternative is so much worse in every way.

        2. Tim Scott is creating the bill in the Senate dummy. He is even working with democrats in his committee unlike the bill in the House that is only working in a partisan manner.

          1. Will it address qualified immunity?

  6. Is there any theory of how a president could address qualified immunity by executive orde even if Trump were inclined to do so?

    In fact, I am not sure if the president is empowered to do much about local police forces by executive order at all.

    1. It’s not really his problem to solve, other than refraining from veto’ing whatever Congress manages to pass.

  7. It would also ban chokeholds unless the officer’s life is at risk.

    Then it doesn’t ban chokeholds.

    1. Too true; the officer’s life is at risk every time he steps outside.

    2. Well, to be fair, “the officer’s life is at risk” is the territory where shooting the guy in the face with a shotgun isn’t banned. So confining choke-holds to that region is probably not all that terrible.

  8. On what constitutional interpretation is ‘police reform’ even remotely the object of an executive order? And why the fuck are the links here just yet more references to previous Reason articles? Rather than to – you know – the executive order? Is this just some SEO strategy?

    1. Executive orders can probably be quite thorough on the issue, as far as federal law enforcement goes. You could completely rework training protocols and discretionary authority for the FBI, ATF, Forest Services, Marine and Oceanic Police, Pentagon Police, Office of Secure Transportation, Customs and Border Patrol, Secret Service Uniformed Division, Federal Marshals, and the Office of Odometer Fraud Investigation.

      1. Executive orders aren’t needed to change training material at those levels.

        1. It might be overkill to dictate it from the office of the President, but it’s certainly not an overreach of power if he does so. Those are federal agencies answerable to the executive branch.

    2. I was wondering the same thing. I do not want any more pen-and-phone government. Laws please.

    3. We are close to 100 different federal agencies with their own police forces that could be reformed. Or better yet, eliminated

  9. Made me curious about what has happened with Trump’s executive order on social media. You know the one he had his team throw together after he had a tantrum about Twitter. Pretty much nothin’:


    1. ^still doesn’t get it

      1. Don’t forget. I used to be Trump’s biggest fan here. But I do get it now.

        1. He ordered the FTC to look in to ways to enforce transparency and honesty in the enforcement of user policies. What exactly did you expect to happen in a couple of weeks? The board of directors of Twitter hanging from trees on the Mall?

          1. FCC?
            Trump seems to have lost interest already and moved onto the next obsession.

            1. No. FTC. Truth in advertising, that sort of thing. And a president would not have any involvement in the process after issuing the order.

              There also was an FCC component, but that seemed much weaker to me.

  10. Trump’s executive order has three components: using financial incentives to encourage that officers are trained and credentialed in the proper use of force, compiling a national database of police officers with multiple misconduct claims, and forming co-responder programs between police departments, social workers, and medical professionals to better address issues like addiction and homelessness. It would also ban chokeholds unless the officer’s life is at risk.

    How does the President have any authority to change any of this?

    Money — appropriated by the House, surely, just sitting around in a slash pile for him to dole out as he sees fit.

    National database — that also requires money to set up and maintain, and requires information supplied by local and state employees — but the Supreme Court has made it clear that the Feds cannot tell state and local governments what to do. The feds can make funds contingent on behavior, up to a point, but where are those funds coming from? If existing funds, how much leeway did Congress give the President in deciding on the contingencies?

    Creating co-responder programs — again, where are the funds coming from? Again, the feds cannot commandeer states to do their bidding. In addition, where is the authority under Federalism to butt in like this?

    Banning chokeholds — by executive order? Again with commandeering state and local agencies. Again with federalism. Or is there some claim that chokeholds affect interstate commerce?

    1. Coresponder bad news — male cop and female coresponder bad idea.

  11. Typical libertarian (sic) take, it isn’t everything I want so I’ll condemn it. You are just as bad as the Republicans and Democrats for this shit.

    1. You have defined statist cancel culture perfectly.

  12. “Without police there is chaos, without law there is anarchy, and without safety there is catastrophe.”

    Trump is corroding our once defining American individualism, self-reliance, liberty, and courage with his own cowardly Bunker Boy worldview.

    Trump’s passion for tyranny and false bravado grow from the same seed, cowardice.

    “Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.” ~ Ronald Reagan

    1. Interesting contrast.

      Trump is destroying things by hiding in a bunker and not taking charge.

      And by being a tyrant.

  13. Armed social workers will be the outcome of all this virtue signalling and alleged arms waiving.

    1. And police officers will transfer complete with seniority and pensions and qualified impunity.

  14. Trump can’t repeal qualified immunity by EO. If he tried, you clowns would be calling him a tyrant.

    1. The problem I imagine here is that the EO gives cover for Congress to do nothing legislatively to undo the damage the Supreme Court had done imposing QI.

      1. Pbbt. Cover. Trump could cure cancer by EO and they’d condemn it. How in the world could he possibly “work with congress” on anything before the election? I’ll be shocked if Pelosi sends through anything without some poison pill.

        If she does, we’ll finally have evidence that someone actually wanted to accomplish something on this topic. I’ve been a hardcore libertarian on policing reform for 30 years. We’ve never been close to anyone wanting to do anything prior to Trump.

        In fact, this issue has been exactly like Abortion.. .where politicians love to have the issue to fight over, but do anything possible to avoid making any progress.

    2. I agree though that an Executive Order is the wrong way to go. Trump’s instincts early on (with immigration) in attempting to force Congress to do its job were correct.

      1. If he wanted to address the issue with Federal Law Enforcement, it should be mostly EOs all the way down. When you’re trying to change policies for local police forces, you’re right, he really doesn’t have much to work with.

        1. The issues for federal law enforcement are different though.

          A big one for the feds is the use of ludicrous stacked charges to gain plea bargain agreements.

          Another is the FBI’s habit of using handwritten notes about interviews as evidence of “lying”… evidence that is universally accepted in court, even when the notion of “lying” is severely strained. Every person in the country has an audio-video recording device in their pocket. Yet FBI interviews are still strictly handwritten notes only. And they don’t even preserve the contemporaneous notes.. they rewrite them for filing and destroy the originals.

          Then there’s forensics lab reform… another area not currently on the table locally.

  15. Okay, it’s a start. But without a rollback of Qualified Immunity, and the emasculation of the police unions, it means next to nothing.

    It’s like “reforming” your rabid pit bull by sending him to obedience school but forgetting all about putting him on a leash.

    1. LOL

      QI is the silver bullet!

      1. Was thinking during a drive earlier.
        If an airline loses your bag, can you sue the baggage handler personally?
        If a restaurant fucks up your reservation, can you sue the front desk clerk?
        If a mover drops your antique vase, can you sue him?

        1. To your implied question, can you sue an individual for something the company did wrong, people name CEOs in their personal capacity in lawsuits all the time. To your specific questions:
          – If the airline loses your bag and if you can attribute it to the bad actions of a specific baggage handler (a big if), then yes you could sue the baggage handler personally and might even win.
          – If the restaurant screws up your reservation, you’d have a hard time demonstrating damages so probably no, not even if it were entirely the front desk clerk’s fault.
          – You almost certainly signed a waiver protecting the mover of your antique vase.

          None of those are directly applicable, however, because 1) all your examples are routine but not illegal wrongs and 2) you are allowed to sue the company instead of it’s individual agent. A better example would be if a cable installer steals your silverware, can you sue the cable company? Generally the answer is no because the cable installer broke the law. Breaking the law is not inside the proper scope of employment and the cable company throws the installer under the bus. You have to sue the installer directly. (Okay, you could try to sue the cable company by alleging negligent supervision but that would be a tough argument.)

          For police, however, you generally can’t sue the state when it’s routine because of sovereign immunity and the only way you can sue when one of their agents was acting outside the proper scope of his/her employment is through Section 1983. And that’s where QI kicks in.

          1. The last paragraph is the entire crux of the thing. It is a sick catch-22.

            It gets even worse with the real abuses – the ones where they send an innocent man to jail. Many places have laws that limit damages to a fraction of what they should be — even when the state actors intentionally framed an innocent man for capital murder.
            Mississippi has been a font of such activity. Guys who spent nearly 20 years on death row can’t sue the prosecutors who intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence. The supreme court stood firm, even when there was a clear pattern of such activity over time.

            This is where the parallels to the mafia become clearly outlined.

  16. “It would also ban chokeholds unless the officer’s life is at risk.”

    Which, if you ask any LEO that begins the second they walk out their front door!

    “Using financial incentives to encourage that officers are trained and credentialed in the proper use of force”

    In other words, shoot when the suspect is three feet away from you as they are running away, not ten feet!

    I love the way Trump governs with a pen. Reminds me of…… whatever, what does it matter that this point!

    1. whatever, what does it matter that this point!

      I believe the phrase you’re looking for is “what difference, at this point, does it make?”

      1. Correct, thanks! My comment device is not perfect.

    2. It’s just as bad as when Obama did it, but unfortunately Obama made it normal. Which really wouldn’t matter for Trump personally, but he’d probably get more pushback if EO overreach wasn’t already normalized.

  17. How about changing every single one of these realities instead of placating people with a bunch of nonsense that hinges on exceptions:

    1) The Supreme Court has said that the police have NO DUTY to protect the public: Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County
    2) The Supreme Court has said that the police do not have to understand the laws they are sworn to protect: Hein v. North Carolina
    3) The Supreme Court has said that the police can make “reasonable mistakes” even to the point of killing someone: Hein v. North Carolina
    4) The Supreme Court has said that police are allowed to lie and be deceptive: Frazier v. Cupp
    5) The Police in the United States investigate themselves when something goes wrong and…surprise, surprise…the find that they did nothing wrong.

    1. Yea, but that’s hard.
      So much easier to cry about racism, QI, and not letting people who fight or flee go.

  18. It would also ban chokeholds unless the officer’s life is at risk.

    That seems like an exception that you could drive a truck through.

    To be honest, I’m not sold on the idea of banning chokeholds outright either. The reason being is that a properly executed chokehold (the operative phrase here being “properly executed” – needless to say kneeling on someone’s neck for almost 9 minutes is not “properly executed”) can be one of the safer techniques to use when subduing an actually violent, physically resisting criminal. It’s certainly better than just beating the shit out of someone. Banning “chokeholds” (whatever that actually means – there’s different types of chokeholds too) would probably result in an increase of cops beating people to death or within an inch of their lives.

    I don’t know what the solution is, to be honest. I just don’t think that banning specific techniques is any kind of panacea.

    1. “That seems like an exception that you could drive a truck through.”

      Because a law (or whatever) requires juries to use their discretion doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bad because of that. In fact, if there were a reform in this area that might make sense, it would be taking discretion away from prosecutors in their choice as to whether to take a cop to trial and giving more of that discretion to grand juries.

  19. “Trump’s executive order has three components: using financial incentives to encourage that officers are trained and credentialed in the proper use of force, compiling a national database of police officers with multiple misconduct claims, and forming co-responder programs between police departments, social workers, and medical professionals to better address issues like addiction and homelessness. It would also ban chokeholds unless the officer’s life is at risk.”

    Is Binion against this because it doesn’t also violate the police’s freedom of association rights?

    “It does not touch qualified immunity or police unions.”

    If Binion imagines that we should support the president violating the freedom of association rights of the police with an executive order on the basis of libertarianism, he’s at the very least stealing two bases.

  20. The things in that executive order are all good ideas but they seem pretty far outside the allowable scope of a presidential EO. I’m not sure even Congress can do most of that. Reforming the police is a matter for the state.

    And, yeah, fixing (un)qualified immunity should be a much higher priority (though that’s also not something that can be fixed by a mere EO).

    What he could have done by EO, however, is to immediately end the ‘military surplus to police’ program. It wouldn’t get rid of the armored cars and heavy assault weapons that they already have but as a wise man once told me, “The first step to getting out of a hole is to stop digging.”

    1. Nobody seems to want to address the fact that much of the lack of accountability is baked into the union contracts of these municipalities, and if the people of Minneapolis or wherever won’t vote city council representatives out of office for approving such union contracts, there isn’t anything anyone in government can or should do about that.

      There is no good substitute for voters in a democracy, and if the voters won’t vote for anyone unless they’re a Democrat, then they should suffer the consequences of living under a single-party government until they change their minds–or we change their minds through persuasion. And why are people so afraid of persuasion these days?

      There’s no good substitute for persuasion in a democracy either.

  21. “Without police there is chaos”
    With police there is still chaos!

    Is Trump really this ignorant?

    1. Trump’s manifest ignorance baffles so many because his skill in building his cult of personality proves that he is not a congenital moron. What Trump is is an insect. In his famous quote Heinlein said that “…specialization is for insects.” Trump has specialized so completely in self-promotion that he has no other skills, nor even thoughts. Trump is an insect – a very poisonous insect.

  22. Can’t we just hang a rainbow flag on the front porch and call it done?

  23. “It does not touch qualified immunity or police unions.”

    Tell us how an executive order *could* affect either of those.

    1. It wouldn’t. Touching the police unions will probably require federal legislation as unions are largely protected by federal legislation– to the best of my knowledge.

  24. the guy that murdered floyd will cash pension checks. resolve that police convicted of crimes in the course of duty lose them and see how fast they fucking mellow out

  25. “Without police there is chaos, without law there is anarchy, and without safety there is catastrophe.” ~ Donald Trump, aka Bunker Boy


    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

    1. There is nothing fundamentally incompatible between maintaining a permanent police force and maintaining liberty. But it does require something other than the laissez faire approach taken by almost every municipality towards their police force. If we didn’t know that in the beginning we can be forgiven, but we certainly know it in spades by now.

      After I’d struck out 4 straight times my high school baseball coach did not shout at me to get a hit. His request was more reasonable: he shouted at me to “do something different”. I would apply the same advice to urban policing today.

      1. For either the frightened authoritarian Trump routinely striking out as President of a nation founded upon liberty, or you as a kid routinely striking out at baseball the better and more fundamental advice from a nation or coach is “try a different sport.”

  26. What’s wrong with this approach to resolve the social unrest?
    “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil for every one hacking at the root.” HDT
    And, it doesn’t work. Institutionalized violence can’t be fixed. It’s fatally flawed. It’s the root of the problem.
    The solution is a voluntary system of governance based on reason, rights, choice. That would be new, require a lot of cooperation and a commitment to respect the individual over all else. Can a society change its primitive public policy and act civil, be a beacon for humanity?

  27. Without police there is no taxation, without law there is no taxation, and without safety there is careful consideration.
    If “Americans” don’t know this, then “Americans” are fools.

  28. I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction on the given website.

    This is what I do………Money80

  29. Without Trump, Liberals will have this country in CHAOS!! ~ Trump 2020!

  30. Mr. Binion,

    “Qualified immunity” comes from Supreme Court precedent interpreting the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The President cannot overturn Supreme Court precedent by executive order.

    Police unions, like all public sector unions for state and local employees, are regulated by state law. The President cannot repeal state labor laws by executive order.

  31. How can a chokehold ban stand up legally as an executive order, unless it’s tied to some existing legislative anchor? How could a president possibly have ordered an end to qualified immunity?

    1. It’s useless anyways. Pretty sure NYPD had a choke hold ban before Eric Garner and it didn’t stop them or lead to any repercussions for what? 9 years?

      1. IIRC, it’s because the NYPD’s definition of a chokehold didn’t include what Pantaleo did. Kind of like how tear gas and “gaseous substances that cause tears” are different things.

    2. I’m willing to bet the Confederates had questions like that about Lincoln’s first EO.

  32. What’s wrong with simply repealing victimless nonsense laws?

  33. This guy loves him some Executive Orders.

  34. “The executive order does not address issues like qualified immunity and police unions, which largely shield police officers from accountability”

    What happened to “Trump’s executive orders go too far”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.