Trump Wants Police To Be Above the Law
Donald Trump pledged to give cops "immunity from prosecution." The idea is both legally illiterate and dangerous.
In May, former President Donald Trump traveled to Wisconsin, a battleground state crucial to his 2016 win and 2020 loss. The stakes are high. He made a few big promises to match.
"We're going to give our police their power back," he told rallygoers in Waukesha, "and we are going to give them immunity from prosecution."
There are a few problems. As president, Trump would be constrained in immunizing anyone, including police, from prosecution, as most proceedings are in state court where his power wouldn't apply. And while it's true that some officers are charged federally—where he could lobby the Department of Justice to refuse to charge any cop—those prosecutions are often in addition to state charges.
Take Derek Chauvin, who was convicted in a Minnesota court of murdering George Floyd. After that trial, he pleaded guilty to federal charges. A President Trump could certainly pardon him for that, but it would make no material difference in the time Chauvin spends in prison, as his state sentence (22.5 years) and his federal sentence (21 years) are running concurrently.
But despite the legal illiteracy of Trump's promise, it's worth considering the implication that those with the most power should be held to the lowest standard.
Trump made clear in office that he'd fight legislation hamstringing qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that bars victims from suing state and local government employees if the way in which those employees allegedly violated the law has not been clearly established as unconstitutional in prior case law. It is why, for example, two California men could not sue officers who allegedly stole more than $225,000 from them during the execution of a search warrant, as there was no previous court ruling that said stealing under such circumstances is illegal. (Federal police, on the other hand, are essentially protected by absolute immunity.)
A common objection to qualified immunity reform is that cops will be bankrupted by lawsuits without it. But a study conducted by UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz found that governments or their insurance companies, not the cops themselves, paid 99.98 percent of the damages awarded to plaintiffs. It's hard to know if Trump realizes this is the case, as he promised in December to "indemnify [police] against any and all liability." Whether that was a knowingly false promise or whether he is unfamiliar with the law remains unclear.
But one thing is clear: Trump would like to see law enforcement held to a lesser standard than the public they serve. The former president has arguably never been a tried-and-true conservative, but he does need to court them. It is difficult to make a conservative case for ensuring that those who enforce the law are also above it.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Trump Promises Police 'Immunity From Prosecution'."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The public they serve are the ones clamoring for a greater police presence. Vagrants have taken over the streets. Illegals walk about with total impunity. Crime is a revolving door that favors criminals. LGBT pedos are openly launching salvos against America’s children. Gangs no longer fear prosecution. Drug addicts shamble about with both the peddlers and users going completely unchecked.
These people need to go, Billy. If that means an empowered police force, then so be it. It’s that, or vigilantes. And we don’t want vigilantes taking things into to their own hands.
This is a warning. All the degenerate people Reason goes to such great lengths to defend – while, oddly, never showing an ounce of concern for Average Joe American – they’re on notice. Get off our streets, get out of our schools, leave this country.
Trump is offering the most reasonable solution possible. Empower the police again. The alternative is that the People will rise up and take matters into their own hands.
I do not want that. You do not want that. And all the degenerate druggies, vagrants, homosexual/pedophiles, bangers, illegals, criminals, and terrorists – and all those who empower them – especially do not want that.
Make the smart choice. Go back to your shadows. And stay there.
There is no good reason to talk about giving Police general immunity. Trump is wrong here, even if he is better than the lawless anarchy proposed by the other side.
This type of unfettered police empowerment is what Bush did for the federal intelligence agencies, and it took less than two decades before that was being weaponized by the Democrats against their political rivals. Do not give them this power too.
I agree that Binion tends to have a blind-spot for the excesses of liberal politicians, and always attributes the worst to icky conservatives. But he is not wrong here. You can enforce immigration laws without increasing the scope any power of our police…you just need to be willing to use the powers you already have (and are probably too powerful to begin with).
My main criticism with Binion here is the same criticism I’ve had with 90% of the Trump obsessed media: he is taking Trump literally, not seriously. Trump is a hyperbolic bombast, and mouths off about all sorts of stuff. What should be taken seriously is that he is going to respect law enforcement and try to deal with the lawlessness at the border. You should not take his “details” literally. But of course, Binion et al literally came of age in the Trump era where the surest way to Twitter fame was taking Trump literally and expressing your outrage over it.
There are two problems with police.
* They have too much immunity for fucking up. Qualified immunity might have some small basis in very specific circumstances, such as performing CPR poorly when there’s no one else to do it better, or being shot at, shooting back, and hitting a bystander; but the idea that stealing $250,000 is excusable because no prior court has ruled it isn’t, and then refusing to say now it isn’t so future cases can continue pretending it’s not yet been ruled wrong — fuck that’s pathetic.
* Defund the police only makes sense in the sense of getting rid of all the victimless crime laws that give the police so many excuses to mind everybody else’s business. Why should they waste their time arresting shoplifters when they can bust drug dealers and pocket the money and drugs?
What pissed me off the most about BLM was their hijacking general police reform in the name of anti-racist police reform. They set police reform back by decades and made America more racist in the process.
As for Trump — well, he’s Trump, and who knows what he really meant. It’s pretty stupid singling out what he says as truthful literal intent, when that article just the other day was singing the praises of Kamala as being against pot prohibition. Taking Trump at his literal word about his future plans would be more credible if Kamala’s decades of actual swear-to-God real actions had been taken into account.
Well said.
Then only time dems take Trump at his word is if it’s something they fear. All other times they think he’s the greatest bullshitter on earth.
Camela wants communist welfare rats to be above the law.
Camela wants to outlaw private property and gas jews.
Look at what the democrats did to jews in germany a few years back. It wasn’t pretty.
Digging massive graves for all the jew carcasses using bulldozers…. democrats love that stuff.
Democrats want all females to abide by palestine law. Cover your filthy female faces …. that’s what the democrats always say.
Democrats support palestine throwing gay people off of the roofs of tall buildings.
Why do democrats do that???
Of course nobody will answer my questions because virtually everyone is a an extreme far left welfare rat democrat wanting a free ride and hating jewish people.
You all want authoritarianism.
Fuck you democrats and rinos.
We love in a current time where if you are arrested at a BLM March for assaults, the city will turn around and give you hundreds of thousands for the inconvenience.
What Binion misses is that he uses the term give them the powers back. This means return to the standards before the defend movement. It isnt to grow their powers to an extension beyond that, but undo the last 7 years of leftist insanity where the criminal is king.
We love in a current time where if you are arrested at a BLM March for assaults, the city will turn around and give you hundreds of thousands for the inconvenience.
Well, unless you’re trying to defend yourself from arsonists. Then you’ll probably get the book thrown at you.
Yes but the answer is not empowering the police/prosecutors with more abilities.
You are not going to legislate your way out of an incompetent or (even worse) intentionally negligent executive branch. And that is what we are seeing in these cities- executive branches that are refusing to perform their sworn duties. No new law will fix that. And certainly, giving broad(er) powers to the same executive agents will not suddenly be better at this willful negligence.
You have two options: 1) judicial, by forcing the executives to comply with the law, under threat of punishment, or 2) voting the willfully negligent fuckers out of office.
Trump’s supposed remedies do not fix these problems. They are just feelgood campaign speech- the Conservative version of pablum like “make corporations pay their fair share” that Democrats use on the campaign trail. Of course, the Democrats have been using these platitudes for decades, and it doesn’t seem to stir the same ire in Binion as Trump’s speeches. But again, that is because Binion is too busy taking Trump literally with a bunch of “Ackshewally” articles than taking Trump seriously as to the problem he wants to solve (rampant lawlessness).
“…Of course, the Democrats have been using these platitudes for decades, and it doesn’t seem to stir the same ire in Binion as Trump’s speeches. But again, that is because Binion is too busy taking Trump literally with a bunch of “Ackshewally” articles…”
^+1
There is no rampant lawlessness. Trump has just spent his career channeling Nixon and Wallace and the late 60’s sense of culture out of control. That resonates more in politics as boomers get older, vote more, acquire/retain power. Trump is able to move from one incident to another to another – the same way the local news will always lead with some story of local violence. Pretty soon – the whole world is up shits creek and the only solution is a strongman who will get things done dammit.
“There is no rampant lawlessness…”
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Unless, of course, you find shoplifting under $900 perfectly legal.
Shoplifting is a perfect example of a crime that gets overhyped for cronyist reasons.
Most of it is internal anyway – employees or internal ‘process failures’. That is especially true for ‘organized crime’ and resale stuff. Industry lobbies hyping that or conflating internal theft with external shoplifting are doing NOTHING but attempting to have govt protect their profit margins via criminal penalties.
The stuff that is external is a consequence of both internal company decisions and a general recession/bad times. Reducing the number of retail employees (or leaving positions open because you don’t want to pay them a competitive wage) improves profit margins and increases shrinkage. That is all well known ever since Piggly Wiggly invented self-service around WW1. Prison does not reduce shoplifting or end recessions. Except to a fascist like you.
Shoplifting is a perfect example of a crime that gets overhyped for cronyist reasons.
LOL
Most of it is internal anyway – employees or internal ‘process failures’
This is some willful blindness right here. Come spend an afternoon in downtown SF or Oakland and it will only be a matter of time before you see, and I mean you see, someone wander into a CVS, Target, or a Walgreens, fill up a cart and walk right out the door, flipping off the employees as they do so.
Did you read the part of the comment re external? Those are all self-service stores – a business model known to have shoplifting as one of its downsides dating back to at least 1929. I can bet the stores you are talking about have spent years – decades maybe – reducing their workforce and/or keeping clerk pay low in order to goose their profit margins. Doubling down on the self-service model all the time.
And now pretending that the problem is – surprise!! – shoplifters not their business model on steroids. They can stop shoplifting easy. They CHOOSE not to. Imprison the poors!!
You Once Were Blind
But Now You’re Blind
Amazing, Grace. That is your name, innit?
What was that store in Sacramento, which reported so many shoplifters that the local po po threatened to prosecute them for tying up the police? Something more than one call a day, I believe.
And how many jurisdictions no longer respond to burglary calls?
Oh, let me guess. You don’t believe it.
One in ten shoppers is a shoplifter. That’s a story from 1970. Nothing has changed.
Except apparently libertarian panic.
Of course he doesn’t. And you shouldn’t believe your lying eyes either.
How about closing up and leaving certain areas altogether because of problems with theft and all the low life losers scaring any actual customers away? Is that another way to “goose their profit margins”, j?
You’re a fucking idiot, dude.
Let me guess. You’re the kind of cunt that see the really old-fashioned self-serve, self-pay country egg stand as just asking for it, and would give them a little educational rape.
“They have insurance! lol “
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-us-stores-that-closed-their-doors-due-to-rampant-theft/ar-AA19VkTp
I agree with JFree’s analysis. If you asked most people about social problems, shoplifting would probably not even rank. They’d say that’s the shop’s problem, and lay it to the reductions in staff. Many people even have unspoken (or even spoken) sympathy for shoplifters and employee thieves as a sort-of-just means of redistribution when the individual acts are on a small scale.
Unfortunately there’s more sentiment against victimless crimes such as the narcotics trade and prostitution than there is against some victimful ones.
I’d love to see your position on the matter if you ran a store.
Doesn’t matter, most people don’t run a store, and even the friends of those who do probably don’t have that much sympathy for them. They just think of it as one of many business conditions.
You guys are funny.
If you’re against letting police take care of this, how about giving shop owners immunity and let them shoot the fucking thieves.
And you’re the kind of cunt who enjoyed watching the BLM “protestors” looting the burning stores, regardless of if they where big brand outlets or Korean-owned bodegas.
You pay higher prices due to the theft retard.
how about giving shop owners immunity and let them shoot the fucking thieves.
So fucking typical. Give immunity – so you can commit a much bigger crime that you in large part caused.
The solution is get govt out of the business of subsidizing particular business models re property crimes. If retailers had to pay the costs of prosecuting and incarcerating thieves – maybe a sliding scale reverse correlated with their insurance/security costs – then they would grow some brain cells and figure out how to reduce shoplifting impact on the state. Maybe solve 95% of the issues like they did in the old days – at the door of the store with some shame and embarrassment. The 5% or so that gets out onto the street where govt now has to deal with it gets resolved like every civilized country on Earth via day fines (x days income).
Only violent criminals – like you clearly want to be – should need imprisonment by the state. Not immunity. Imprisonment.
Who said i was against letting police take care of theft?
so you can commit a much bigger crime
Shooting criminals is a bigger crime than theft?
You are the reason Trump is popular.
Fucking communist.
Of course deliberate bodily injury is a bigger crime than theft.
“I agree with JFree’s analysis. If you asked most people about social problems, shoplifting would probably not even rank”
Like JFucked,
You.
Too.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
When your local CVS, Walgreens, Right Aide close as a result of shop-lifting, you might well have a different view.
And that’s $900, per-person, so get 20 of your closest friends together and, poof; 6 months profit out the door.
Are you competing in the shit-for-brains event in Paris? Or just being an ignoramus in general?
But most people don’t think shoplifting was a major factor in these closures. Those who do think shoplifting was a major factor don’t blame government policy, they blame the shoplifters themselves. Especially if they can blame those of another race from themselves, or another age group (and hence generation). Or they blame management.
I’ve known people who were good predictors of the demise of certain businesses because of embezzling and other chronic criminality that they happened to know about. These people don’t blame government for not preventing or punishing such actions, they blame management for allowing it.
Government policy is way, way down the list of things to blame for economic crime — unless it gets to be ridiculously obvious that government is on the side of the criminals, as we’ve seen a lot of in the USA and other countries in recent years for political reasons. Short of that, though, people don’t think minor changes in the stringency or laxity of enforcement of laws against these types make much difference.
You people need to get out of your bubble.
You have now made multiple assertions, and have not backed any of them up with evidence. All you are doing is pretending to “know” what everyone thinks. This is called projection.
You and JFear seem to be trying a bunch of fan dancing here. The assertion is that certain executive branches (such as San Francisco and other large cities) have abdicated their responsibility to enforce the law, and that is a bad thing. I’m not sure why you think it is relevant that the rest of the nation may or may not think it is an important priority (for the record, Pew research notes that around 58% of people polled nationally think “reducing crime” should be Americans’ Top policy this year[1]). And it is definitely noteworthy that we have seen DAs recalled over the fact, which seems to indicate that at least in the locality, people seem to have a problem with it.
JFear also made an unfounded statement that Shoplifting isn’t even a problem, when we know for a fact that in these localities, stores are closing specifically because they cannot support the cost of this shoplifting. You and JFear seem to be implying that shoplifting is just a general problem that retail companies must deal with that have nothing to do with government policy. This seems like a perfect A/B test to test your hypothesis. If we could find evidence of companies shuttering their stores in these areas at a higher rate than other localities, do you think that would disprove your statement?
[1]https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/02/29/americans-top-policy-priority-for-2024-strengthening-the-economy/
“But most people don’t think shoplifting was a major factor in these closures…”
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit
I think Roberta is saying that other people don’t feel shoplifting is as big an issue, for a myriad of reasons, not that she personally believes that.
BTW, here’s some of the stores ‘most people ignore:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=images+of+borded-up+Union+Square+store&cvid=0ba225ba51754ef1a2dbe467ffbaad9c&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhAMgYIAhAAGEAyBggDEAAYQDIGCAQQABhAMgYIBRAAGEDSAQkyMzQzOGowajmoAgSwAgE&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531
“I think Roberta is saying that other people don’t feel shoplifting is as big an issue, for a myriad of reasons, not that she personally believes that.”
See immediately above
You are correct that shoplifting is not the main reason retail outlets close. Probably not in the top ten reasons – even in neighborhoods where shoplifting becomes a problem. Because in those neighborhoods – the retailer has already failed to understand the local customer and connect with that neighborhood. They don’t want to hire the staff/security that would be needed to avoid charges of false arrest.
To avoid false arrest charges, the store has to:
Observe the customer approach a display
Observe the merchandise being selected from the display
See the merchandise being concealed, carried away, or consumed
Maintain continuous observation
Watch the check stand and verify the non-payment of the item
Detain the shoplifter past the last register
Detain only the person directly responsible for the theft
If the store does all that early stuff it PREVENTS shoplifting. If it doesn’t, it whines about shoplifting to pols and idiots.
If the store does all that early stuff it PREVENTS shoplifting.
No, it does not. If you catch the shoplifter at the door, the crime has already been committed. The fear of being tossed in prison prevents shoplifting.
When it comes to my opinions, it’s not projection, because that’d mean I agree with those people. I’m just telling you what most people are saying. Yes, they think (always!) crime is a major concern, but they’re thinking mostly about violence and other crimes that threaten them directly; some of those are economic crimes like home burglaries and car theft, and then things like vandalism and victimless crimes that mean there are deviant people out and about. They’ve only recently come to terms with such deviance as homosexuality, because people tell them they gotta.
Retail “shrinkage”? White collar crimes? Sure, they think these things are wrong, but they’re not scary.
“Most of it is internal anyway – employees or internal ‘process failures’.”
Hey look, everyone, JFear is here to confidently tell us shit that just isn’t true. He is hilariously consistent at it. One can just imagine him googling statistics and posts on Reddit, skeptically declaring “That can’t be right” – all up until the point where he finds the gawd’s honest truth- which happens to confirm all his biases.
My favorite point was when he eyeballed a graph and decided it told him exactly what he expected to see, only to realize after he’d beclowned himself that the graph made my point.
https://reason.com/2022/08/19/incompetent-people-are-often-too-incompetent-to-realize-just-how-incompetent-they-are-says-new-study/?comments=true#comment-9662173
He has done this on bitcoin, inflation, masking in asia and numerous other subjects. Sometimes I wish he would learn an ounce of critical thinking…but then again, it wouldn’t be nearly as entertaining.
Whatever you think I’ve said/done, you apparently can’t even link to it. All you can link to is something you said.
We can add to JFear’s confirmation bias, the inability to use the scroll wheel on his mouse to roll up in the thread.
Shoplifting last year cost the US 130B. The crime raises costs by almost 3x the tariffs you rant about retard.
How is that $130B computed? Because if they do it like other economic statistics, most shoplifting “cost the US” very little, because the shoplifter got out of it about equal value to what the shop lost. If they do it like other economic statistics, figuring only “dead weight loss”, then vastly more than $130B a year must be boosted to generate that figure.
These cunts don’t care about that.
That 135B is both internal and external. The internal (employee, warehouse, distribution, etc) theft is about 2/3 of the total. External (shoplifting) is about 1/3 of the total. So about $45 billion for shoplifting. That’s roughly 0.5% of retail sales. Well within the margin of what low margin businesses like retail choose to manage.
Retailers make choices. They choose to leave jobs open and reduce wages as a % of sales. They choose the self service model to increase impulse buys. Those two alone are significantly higher than shoplifting shrinkage.
Fucking useless jackass.
When you write things that are provably false, you render your arguments useless
Then prove it false.
I just did, shill. Immediately below.
Trump has just spent his career channeling Nixon and Wallace and the late 60’s sense of culture out of control.
Yeah, remember when Trump imprisoned 1,900 black men on pot charges and then threw away the key? Oh no wait… that was Kamala.
Remember when Trump created and co-sponsored the tough on crime/drugs bill, and boasted that even if you are in possession of a piece of crack the size of a quarter you now automatically go to jail for at least five years and the government gets to seize all your possessions? Oh no wait… that was Joe.
Remember when Joe and Kamala pushed and then signed the First Step Act into law reforming federal prisons and sentencing laws? Oh no wait… that was Trump.
Fucking gaslighting clown. The only thing Trump did in his career was First Step.
The only thing Trump did in his career was First Step.
Well I guess that would explain why Trump hates law and order and wants criminals wandering the streets. Right?
Did you drag that strawman all the way from home, or make it up on the spot to prove what a fucking imbecile you are?
That’s an emotional accusation not an argument, and its not even true but it explains a lot about you. Three examples of what the relevant people actually did and your response is “Yes, but Binion said…”
You’re the worst possible example of a bein pensant, like a Tom Parsons in 1984, full of received wisdom and conventional mediocrity, parroting it out without passing it through conscious thought.
There is no rampant lawlessness.
Just mostly peaceful violence and mayhem, right?
1) just extends immunity to judges where we have already seen gross abuses in the courts. From Sue and settle to the political J6 trials to judges telling defendants the 2A doesn’t exist in her court room.
Not sure why you think judges are less a risk than the police.
I would prefer the allowance of citizens to be able to defend themselves, but districts like NY and California remove these rights.
What I dont want is a system where criminals have more power than citizens. We have seen this recently in El Salvador where Reason even attacked them for cleaning up control of the gangs.
And again, Trump isnt saying total immunity. His statement is clear when he says back, pre 2017 defund movement status.
Right now the leniency of prosecutors is harming citizens far more than any immunity police do get. Shoplifting is 130B a year. Assaults and property crime are up. Leftist political protestors can assault and vandalize to their hearts content, often getting paid if arrested.
The current system is untenable. Yet Binion is again any counter balance to the current system.
Binion isn’t missing anything. His article and many others on Reason are just cheap shots at Trump. Plain and simple. Reason is going all in for the Liberal Socialists.
Reluctantly and strategically.
What Binion misses is that he uses the term give them the powers back. This means return to the standards before the defend movement. It isnt to grow their powers to an extension beyond that…
Why doesn’t he just say what he means? And how do you know what he means based on the words he said?
The alternative is that the People will rise up and take matters into their own hands.
I will also add in current liberal jurisdictions the above is criminalized harder than breaking the law. Defending one self is the ultimate crime.
The only way to end these problems is to end the democrat party and round up the Marxists.
“If that means an empowered police force, then so be it”
This is pure horse manure. I will not let you be so cavalier with MY rights as you give away your own. The police are already empowered. They not only enforce good laws, they also enforce bad laws and laws that don’t even exist – although it’s hard for me to see how there could be anything left that isn’t already either mandatory or forbidden by now. You and Trump seem to be talking about not punishing criminals who commit their crimes under color of the law while on duty and in uniform. The rest of us will not let you get away with it no matter how much you bluster and rant! “A nation of laws” means everyone has to be held accountable for violating those laws, not just the people you don’t like or disagree with.
I will not let you be so cavalier with MY rights as you give away your own.
That sword cuts both ways, MWA – why are you so cavalier with mine, and expect me to roll over for it?
“A nation of laws” means everyone has to be held accountable for violating those laws
Which is precisely what we no longer have anymore.
“The alternative is that the People will rise up and take matters into their own hands.”
“The People” should have been enforcing their laws with their own hands all along. We should NEVER have allowed our government to disarm us or to federalize our militias. If every citizen went about armed and trained to defend themselves, crime would not be rampant in the big blue cities or anywhere else in America. The only power the police need or should be granted by the People would be the power to serve search and arrest warrants based strictly and solely upon evidence of probable cause. The courts should not have the authority to accept plea bargains or guilty pleas and prosecutors should not have the authority to threaten, lie to or withhold evidence from suspects. No person should EVER be punished for a crime without being first found guilty by trial based on legitimate evidence. You do not speak for me – especially when you try to tell me what I want and what I don’t want. I would rather have mob rule than rule by “empowered” lawless officials. The last thing I want is armed thugs deputized to roam the streets above the law and accountable only to their unions. Go away now, AT, and stop annoying the adults.
There’s no better indicator of the authoritarian cesspool the readership of “libertarian” magazine Reason has become than the comments when a writer makes the mistake of mildly criticizing a Trump dictatorship.
This comment could have come from a Hitler speech
Lol. Amazing. Calls others our for going past a single line cut out of the speech, then calls Trump Hitler.
You leftists are retarded.
They don’t send their best.
With zero respect for property — how exactly does libertarianism HAPPEN?
Without fiercely protected property rights, libertarianism is dead in the water.
Which line was false, Kev?
-Vagrants have taken over the streets.
-Illegals walk about with total impunity.
-Crime is a revolving door that favors criminals.
-LGBT pedos are openly launching salvos against America’s children.
-Gangs no longer fear prosecution.
-Drug addicts shamble about with both the peddlers and users going completely unchecked.
What positive remarks could anyone have to say about any of them? Are they features of a healthy, functioning, culturally redeeming society, or are they heralds of its impending collapse? Or, perhaps maybe the collapse is what you’re ultimately after? I’m inclined to believe it of a great many people over the last decade or so.
And even if you do, do you think everyone else is just going to stand by and let it happen? Most normal average everyday Americans would very much like the re-establishment of rule of law and a police force that is in a position to enforce it. They want the drugs and pederasts and gender benders out of their schools. They want the addicts and vagrants off the sidewalks in front of their businesses and urban residences. They want health care and education to stop being squandered on illegals who contribute NOTHING whatsoever in return for it; and they want the criminals who immediately turn to crime and violence upon entering this nation dealt with swiftly and harshly.
Why is that so much to ask? What could you possibly have against any of it? Are you’re telling us that’s not going to happen? Because if you are, I’m warning you that people will start dealing with it on their own. And you definitely don’t want THAT to happen.
The thing is, police don’t need special new powers and immunity to accomplish those things. They just need to be less constrained in enforcing the laws that exist now. The reason the streets are full of vagrants and junkies isn’t that police can be prosecuted when they do something wrong. It’s because their city governments won’t allow it (until they realize there’s an election coming and everyone hates the present situation).
*oprah voice*
You get immunity! And you get immunity! And you get immunity!
Trump always says vague, over-the-top stuff that is *way* more than he readily accept or half the time even wants.
What normal people (who kinda *know* this, after 8+ years) take away from this, is that he wants to balance the very out of balance anti-cop stuff that has been going on. Something that normal people have no problem with, and like the sound of.
Those suffering from TDS take his every word as explicit, un-nuanced reality. Fuck ’em with a broomstick wrapped in barb-wire; tired of it.
Nice try, but it couldn’t matter less to me what Trump wants or whether he really means what he says. The only thing he accomplished while he was President was a trade war with China that only hurt the consumers he was claiming to want to help. I totally reject your characterization of the “very out of balance anti-cop stuff” you think has been going on. The only thing out of balance regarding cops for the last two hundred years is their near total immunity from the consequences of their misbehavior even after they have committed crimes while on duty in uniform. There is nothing whatsoever “anti-cop” about wanting to finally start holding officials legally accountable for their crimes.
That’s not the only thing he accomplished…
As pointed out above… the crime you seemingly support costs far more than the tariffs you seemingly cry about.
“We’re going to give our police their power back,” he told rallygoers in Waukesha, “and we are going to give them immunity from prosecution.”
Proof that Donnie is a fascist. Not a genocidal maniac type fascist. But instead your law’and’order, power-hungry, respect the flag, authority loving, dictatorial, hate the working class, rough-them-up cop-loving asshole fascist.
How about proof you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned?
The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Donnie Boot-licker Sevo Jr gone full retard.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Can’t refute it, can you, pedo?
‘Course he can’t; he was caught linking kiddy-porn on this site. He is a slimy, stinking pile of shit you are happy does not live withing a hundred miles of you.
MAGA minister arrested
Blount County youth minister arrested for alleged sexual abuse of child inside church
https://www.wvtm13.com/article/blount-county-youth-minister-arrest-church/61560675
And you’re chortling because you got out the back window just in the nick of time.
He’s just jealous.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
I find it amusing you always retreat to this argument when the most pedophilia entity currently is public schools run by democrats.
And given the Dems love of trannies who have frighteningly high rates of pedophilia — well, that and mass murder.
Turn yourself in for your crimes against children.
You can say whatever you want Kiddie Raper, but you’re still a pedophile who posted child porn links here.
Oh, and you don’t know the meaning of fascist if that’s your definition.
He’s very ignorant, and stupid too.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Oh please.
There’s nothing fascist about giving police absolute power to roam the country, kidnapping undesirables, without any regard to consequences.
Nothing fascist at all.
Besides, Democrats were fascists during Covid so that makes it ok because they did it first.
Poor, poor, sarc.
Pour Sarc. So much concern trolling for your precious illegals.
And king strawman returns after crying he wasn’t yesterday. Lol.
Democrats have been actual fascists since at least FDR.
Is this one of those bait posts where if I contrast Democrats with fascists I get accused of being one and of defending them? You trying to be a Jesse Jr? If so all my respect for you just disappeared like a mouse fart in a hurricane.
Hey buddy. Nobody here cares about your respect since nobody respects you. Even jeff just thinks you’re a useful idiot.
You’re welcome to contrast Democrats and fascists. I’m willing to back up my assertion.
And I would never call you one just because you’re wrong. 🙂
And here’s shrike proving yet again he doesn’t know what fascism is.
Post
See new posts
Conversation
Collin Rugg
@CollinRugg
NEW: Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh suggests Barack Obama threatened Biden with the 25th Amendment, saying he had “Kamala’s approval” to force him out of the 2024 race.
Holy sh*t.
Hersh says Obama was “deeply involved” with the alleged coup and called Biden after his “incident” in Las Vegas.
“I went over [reports] this week with a senior official in Washington who helped me fashion an account of a White House in complete disarray,” Hersh said.
“Obama called Biden after breakfast [on July 20] and said, ‘Here’s the deal. We have Kamala’s approval to invoke the 25th Amendment,'” a senior Washington official told Hersh.
Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries were reportedly directly involved.
Obama’s plan was to not immediately endorse Kamala but it was clear that she would “get the nod” and it was determined that her being a prosecutor would help in debates.
“[Obama] had an agenda and he wanted to seek it through to the end, and he wanted to have control over who would be elected.”
This is called a coup.
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1817352933211840960
The Ds are pushing a woman who has never gotten >2% of the national vote as POTUS, while Trump (who has won the job once, and left office peacefully) is the one who ‘threatens democracy’.
And now we should now be worried when Trump makes an exaggerated campaign statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stuff your TDS up your ass, Binion.
Will you fuck-tards make up your mind?
If Senile Joe had the brain of a tomato then why wasn’t the 25th appropriate?
You may want to use it on Donnie in 2027.
Have you even looked at the 25th? It was up to your Dems to not use it.
TBF, shrike is fucking retarded.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
What you’ve posted here is a non sequitur.
Why do you keep defending democrats lying to your face?
There was another piece going around that endorsing Kamala was Biden’s revenge on the Obamas for shoving him out without telling him.
Whether it’s true or not, it shows not only what the public and the Dems think of themselves, but it also shows the difference between Trump and all other politicians. No one thinks up any of these conspiracy theories about Trump and his staff, because Trump doesn’t play those games. That’s why so many people vote for Trump.
Sounds like an episode of “House of Cards”.
Jeff’s favorite journalism monitoring news censorship site is going after Jonathan Turley after he published a piece regarding their censorship practices.
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/4795501-newsguard-censorship-conservative-speech/
For any site criticizing the media or the Biden administration, the most chilling words today are “I’m from NewsGuard and I am here to rate you.”
I love reasons multiple hot pieces on trump, combined with their lackluster coverage of Kamala, or the coup that put her in the race.
Kamala ordered subordinates to falsify evidence and omit evidence to get a conviction. She then kept people jail pass their release day for free labor, that’s called being a slaver.
Combine that with her senate and vp record here she supports all Marxism and the destruction of the US. And her Marcusian repressive tollarance where she supports jailing political opponents, but not leftists murderers
Yeah, but she doesn’t say ‘things’ that lazy hacks can use in a headline! You expect Binion to do anything like research? That takes time and effort, better spent at the cocktail parties.
But she does. Every time she opens her mouth it’s a masterclass in stupidity
Doesn’t seem to make the news, and I’m not about to waste time watching her.
Not just lackluster. They actually had articles arguing she’d be better on war and drugs than Trump. Pure leftist propaganda.
DeSantis thinks he can keep Satanists out of schools. He can’t
The Florida governor is playing culture war games with children’s lives. It might backfire badly
…
Ron DeSantis, the far-right governor of Florida, has been using children as pawns in his latest culture war. A state law took effect this week that is intended to allow Christian counselors into schools, who will provide “support” to students in need. The law — which DeSantis said was brought in to correct a growing sense among liberals that “God has no place” in schools — has to include other religions aside from Christianity, because of the constraints of the Constitution.
….
During a debate in the Utah Senate about a very similar bill, one Republican lawmaker explained that his opposition was based on the fact the state “wouldn’t be able to discriminate, and so any religion that wanted to be able to place a chaplain [in schools] would be able to do so”. That includes the Satanic Temple, he added, “who wants to place chaplains there.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/desantis-satanists-law-christianity-schools-b2577592.html
Dipshit Ron doesn’t understand the First Amendment
Most people would trust Satanists as counselors over pedophile Christians/Catholics.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Guess who started this culture war?
Pedos like you.
Why is the most important thing about drag queen reading hour that they will only read to little children? Do they ever read to hospital patients or in rest homes?
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
To paraphrase one of the founders of drag queen story hour, little hot mess,
The goal is to leave a trail of glitter that children could never stray from.
The people that started that did it for grooming purposes.
That’s so clear, just by their insisting on reading to little kids only, that I sometimes think the media is a little annoyed that they have to waste so much time covering for them instead of writing climate catastrophe stories.
Why is Shrike not in prison?
He is (D)ifferent.
We get it. You want to fuck kids, disgusting pedo.
Ontario megachurch pauses programming in wake of sex abuse allegations
The Meeting House was unable to renew its liability insurance after charges against former pastor
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/meeting-house-pause-insurance-1.7270941
Odd how churches have become a hotbed of child pedophiles to the extent they have trouble obtaining insurance.
#PastorMothersLament?
They’re too busy paying off drag queen pedos.
turd, the TDS-addled ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
MAGA pastor arrested: (Florida this time)
Southern Baptist Pastor Charged with 18 Felonies, After Photos Emerge of Him Sexually Abusing a Toddler
..
Police say Elwing was using a private photo vault app on his phone to hide at least 14 pictures of him sexually assaulting a 2-year-old, the Brade
https://julieroys.com/southern-baptist-pastor-elwing-charged-18-felonies-after-photos-emerge-of-him-sexually-abusing-a-toddler/
Jealousy is a bitch.
This is the forth time he’s posted the same story, and it’s because he’s lazy and thinks we won’t notice it, but also because he’s mad with envy.
turd, the ass-wipe of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit.
He’s being punished.
Now the trannies…
The former president has arguably never been a tried-and-true conservative, but he does need to court them. It is difficult to make a conservative case for ensuring that those who enforce the law are also above it.
Maybe he needed to court conservatives in 2016 – or thought he needed to. That’s why he picked Pence as his VP then. Now he doesn’t need to court conservatives because I’m not sure how many conservatives there are anymore. There are a ton of fascists now.
Maybe they call themselves conservatives – and maybe they used to be. But they are now so riven with hatred of ‘them’ – so convinced that ‘they’ are conspiring to get ‘us’ – it doesn’t take much to throw rule of law overboard in order to assert rule of power. Esp since the christian variety of conservative was never interested in the rule of law anyway. Rather, like Islamists, they are interested in the rule of God/power. If the cops are doing the will of God, why would one need to restrain God by law? And the libertarian/Randian variety of conservative was always more interested in govts use of power to protect ‘us’ (or at least those who want to pretend they are wealthy) from ‘other’.
The only thing that surprises me is how quickly that change happened. Maybe two decades – from most conservatives being Burkean to conservatives being fascist..
“…There are a ton of fascists now. Maybe they call themselves conservatives…”
JFucked has a hard time knowing what words mean, and is too stupid to understand that.
JFree was a dem supporting covid fascist. Why he is desperate to point at others.
Yeah, it’s easy to understand how JFree thinks there are so many ‘fascists’ when he see’s one every time he looks in a mirror.
I’m also tired of people tossing around the term ‘fascist’ if I’m totally honest. It’s basically lost all meaning now, rather like teen girls using ‘literally’ when they mean ‘figuratively’.
Just call them nihilists or idiots, because by and large that’s what they really are.
I will continue to use the word when it accurately applies. Other people inaccurately using it shouldn’t shield the current regimes use of fascist tactics.
I hated the term fascist for most of my life. It’s lazy. But the sad now is – it fits.
Please explain how.
JFree hates and fears people who challenge his desire for a caring, compassionate, nanny state. Hence they are fascists.
I did above. When you militarize opposition to an internal other and demonize them so that a rule of law no longer applies to them, you have crossed the line into fascism. Many other characteristics of fascism are just consequences of that
So you agree that the democrat party is overtly fascist?
That DOES NOT sound like the Democrat Party to you? Seriously?
What about using laws in novel way to go after your political opponent?
Or using the power of government to censor opposing opinions on social media?
Leftists always project.
Maybe two decades – from most conservatives being Burkean to conservatives being fascist..
This from the same freak who wanted to force you to double-mask, kick people off the internet who said mean things about his clot shot, and make the refuseniks lose their jobs and pile them into internment camps.
The same guy who wants police to hunt down people who leave tire tracks on sex cult flags painted on the road.
This is the guy that didn’t blink when the FBI was used to investigate Catholics or threaten PTA parents.
This is the same guy who smiles when the CIA and the FBI were illegally ordered by the sitting president to spy on opponents of his secretary of state’s campaigns.
This is the same guy who thumbed up the J6 committee deliberately withholding evidence that would have exonerated imprisoned protesters.
This is the guy that clapped and cheered when the administration tried to imprison its main opponent on frivolous, fraudulent and novel charges. The guy who orgasmed when they tried to get judges to remove their opponent from the ballot for a crime he wasn’t even charged with.
There’s a fascist in this forum alright, J(ew)Free, and it’s the antisemitic authoritarian fuck typing on your keyboard.
Like I said, leftists always project.
There’s a reason you’re a worthless piece of shit who’s not worth replying to. Gray.
Truth hurts?
I don’t give a shit, you disgusting antisemitic freak. I’ll still point out when you’re being a goosestepping authoritarian whether you run away without answering or not.
You should be honored that he described you so succinctly. And he is exactly right.
Now apologize, then thank him.
The only way we could throw “rule of law” overboard now is if we currently HAD “rule of law.” There has been no identifiable “rule of law” anywhere in the United States of America for over a hundred years, and none in the big cities for probably a hundred and fifty years. There are well over four thousand federal laws and regulations alone on the books (no one knows how many over four thousand there are because no one has been able to count them. The Justice Department claims to have given up after about two years of trying because it was impossible.) And that doesn’t include the state, county, city and enforcement district rules and regulations for the fifty states and the territories. Very few of those laws include a clause requiring that the suspect INTENDED to violate the law and almost all of them have been amended and re-amended so many times and cross-referenced to so many other laws that even the few honest judges there are have difficulty figuring out what a violation might be! If you haven’t violated at least three federal laws today it’s pure dumb luck. Don’t make me laugh by trying to allege that one politician or another is a threat to “our democracy” by wanting to eliminate some non-existent “rule of law.”
“Update: I-15 to Las Vegas reopens after hazmat fire snarls weekend traffic in California”
[…]
“CHP reports all lanes of I-15 now open, ending traffic nightmare
The northbound I-15 freeway is again fully open after a two-day closure due to a hazardous materials incident involving a lithium battery fire…”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/freeway-connecting-california-las-vegas-144331995.html
Really an update on ‘green’ energy, and droolin’ Joe’s EV mandate.
Wow. The idiots aren’t appealing to Saint Babbitt. On Sunday even.
Poor sarc.
The shitty drunken troll begs for it. If he could he’d dig up her corpse and wear her skull like a hat just to troll “MAGAts”.
You love to mock a dead white woman killed by officers in what you defended as a blind shoot. And think you are principled.
sarcasmic 6 months ago (edited)
Flag Comment
Mute User
I back the blue when they’re right. In this case, as you very well know, the cop didn’t know she was unarmed and from his vantage point he couldn’t see the crowd. He just saw someone crawling through a smashed barricade while hearing chaos on the police radio. So based upon what he knew based upon what he could see and hear, he did what he thought was right.
You know all of this, but you dishonestly say “shot an unarmed woman” to make it look like she was just whistling along, minding her own business, and then pow dead for no reason.
And I’d be absolutely shocked if you framed that event with a shred of honesty.
Still amazes me this is the only cop you have ever openly supported.
Because Sarc is human garbage (and vermin, just for Jeffy).
BOMBSHELL REPORT: SWAT officer in PA confirms his team had NO CONTACT with United States Secret Service at the rally in Butler until after the ass*ssination attempt on Trump.
PAYING ATTENTION NOW..
https://x.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1817607165944672507
Of course not. The Secret Service was blatantly assisting in the assassination of their charge and they’ll do it again. Even a toddler can put two and two together on this one.
There’s a new video out that shows what is purported to be the sniper post on the second story of the building adjacent to the roof that Crooks fired from. There is a clear unobstructed view of the entire roof. There were supposed to be three local snipers there. The story is that one went home early. A second one went downstairs to investigate a suspicious person, probably Crooks, but he forgot his key card and the third guy left the post completely unmanned to go downstairs to let him in. That’s when Crooks got into position and fired. I can’t help but notice the parallels to Epstein. He was on suicide watch when the cameras mysteriously failed and the prison guards were doing other shit.
“A common objection to qualified immunity reform is that cops will be bankrupted by lawsuits without it. But a study conducted by UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz found that governments or their insurance companies, not the cops themselves, paid 99.98 percent of the damages awarded to plaintiffs.”
1) I’m sure the UCLA law professor conducted a very impartial “study.”
2) Assuming that is even true, what would happen if you filed 10,000 hail claims a year with your home owner’s insurance? Would they continue to pay out, or would they drop you after 2 claims? Follow the logic, genius.
So yes, they would in fact be bankrupted without immunity. Particularly given the ideological bent of the tort lawyers.
In many areas it is taxpayers who pay for misconduct, not insurers, which limit their liability.
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/06/01/george-floyd-protests-police-misconduct-cases-settlements-judgments/
On top of that the left is already clamoring for insurers to act in a corporate manner to rewrite police acts instead of voting citizens. A form of corporate fascism.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hidden-hand-uses-money-reform-troubled-police-departments-n1233495
We have seen how well this type of corporate oversize has worked in areas where Soros has bought off the lease offices. Would prefer then to be accountable to the people, not to corporations.
I’m all for individual government employees being indemnified against personal financial liability for their official acts (so long as they acted within their official duties – a DMV employee that used their access to the data system to find an ex and get their driver’s license suspended should be personally liable, not the state). Yes, that means that taxpayers would be on the hook for any judgements against the city or state. Now, what is called “sovereign immunity” means that state governments and the federal government generally cannot be sued directly over its actions unless the law explicitly allows for it. But filing a tort against an official that acted wrongly, but within the scope of their official duties, should make that liability fall upon the government, in my opinion.
The reason I think that this should be the way this works is that governments should have plenty of incentive to make sure that they hire people with integrity that will not knowingly violate the rights of the people they are supposed to serve. The people with the power to set hiring standards need for voters to see it when they fail to do this and hire the “bad apples” we hear about.
“Tort reform” is a term that special interests often use so that voters can give it whatever meaning those interests want. Plaintiff’s lawyers are out of control and filing frivolous lawsuits to squeeze money from hardworking small business owners and taxpayers! We much limit their ability to file lawsuits so easily! But, is that true or do the special interests behind this message looking to make it so that it is harder for ordinary people to recover some of their losses when big business are negligent or deliberate in cutting corners on safety, or when governments abuse their power?
There are two sides to every coin, right? It is always worth being skeptical of both of them equally.
^ This steaming pile of shit proposes murder as a preventative:
(Federal police, on the other hand, are essentially protected by absolute immunity.)
Was this true before July 1, 2024?
It is difficult to make a conservative case for ensuring that those who enforce the law are also above it.
Billy, you need to understand one thing: Trump is being prosecuted as “lawfare” by his political enemies. If they can do that to him, they can do it to any cop that they don’t like. Especially ones that shoot unarmed people for no valid reason.
Trump and other True Conservative government officials must be above the law so that they can’t be targeted by anyone* demanding that they be held accountable for violating the law!
*(Let’s face it. Anyone that says that Trump or a cop has committed a crime must be an anti-American leftist. That means that making that kind of accusation is proof that the accusation is false!)
Pour sarc.
What should I be pouring sarc into?
On a serious note, if you think that my use of sarcasm is so poor, then how about my point? I’ll summarize it without sarcasm if that helps.
It is natural for Trump to sympathize with cops accused of abusing their power, given all of the accusations of exactly that and other crimes, both in his indictments and impeachments. And the way he sells himself as a victim of “lawfare” means that it makes sense to him to try and make it seem like the same thing is happening to ordinary, honorable police officers.
But even if we take these beliefs of his as being true, it still does not follow that making police completely immune from prosecution or lawsuits is a good solution. Making it impossible to hold any officer accountable for violating our rights as Americans, including completely unjustified use of deadly force, should be something that every one of us would find frightening.
^ This pile of lefty shit promotes murder as a preventative:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
Cops can’t round up 11,000,000 illegals and follow the law at the same time. These things are mutually exclusive. Naturally the solution is to make police immune from criminal law.
It amazes me how you keep pushing far left talking points as if he will go door to door. Lol.
And how else does he plan to deport ~10 million illegals? Or do you admit that he is just blowing smoke up his supporters’ asses with that kind of talk?
Or maybe it’s another example of “take Trump seriously, but not literally”? Which, to me, has always translated as “read what you want to believe into what Trump says, because he doesn’t actually know how to actually implement any of the shit he says.”
Is El Salvador more or less free after the crackdown on gangs?
^ This asshole promotes murder as a preventative:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
Remember the prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse.
^ This asshole promotes murder as a preventative:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
We need to bring back dueling. The peaceful facade of the judicial process is barbaric.
…
You don’t know the conservatives I know. In my experience, the knee jerk response by conservatives to anything involving police is to side with the police. Particular circumstances that they would look into for exceptions exist, but the default attitude is that the police are on the side of regular folks and are being put upon by the antisocial and elites.
This is how to understand Trump. The exact details he’s talking about may be completely irrelevant, far fetched, etc. But it’s what he’s saying in general that are important, and that I think most observers will get: that you regular folks out there are in most cases helped by the job police do, and that therefore their jobs should not be made harder, as the Democrats seem to want to do. Don’t analyze it more deeply than Trump means you to see. If you went to Trump and told him about examples of police malfeasance, he’d agree with you that those were a bad thing, and that he’d try to do what he can to rectify them. That’s not going to change his general attitude, though.
So this steaming pile of shit is a “conservative”?
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?…”
Beats me, don’t know enough about the context.
~25 years ago, a friend gave me a political opinion quiz that consisted of a list of a bunch of things, a word or two apiece, to which I was go give my “gut level” opinion of “for” or “against”, no abstentions. I responded, but the process revolted me in that nearly ever list item didn’t really have enough into to specify. People like us just plain dislike the “gut level” as a substitute for analysis.
However, my friend said he got good results from that kind of characterization. And I’m sure he’s right. And that’s the spirit in which to understand Trump’s communications: less of the analytic, left-brain thinking; more of the intuitive, artistic right-brain thinking.
In my friend’s quiz, the item would’ve been “police” — you for or against them? That’s all Trump’s saying here: that he’s for them, vote for him if you are too at the gut level.
Show me someone who believes police help people, and I’ll show you someone who has never been a crime victim and asked them for help. The most they do is make a report. Victimless crime is a totally different matter.
And this is true, because most people aren’t.
I’m thirsty for some cum.
Any takers?
You can’t even do this correctly, shrike. In this stupid scenario, you would be looking for a giver , not a taker. See the difference?
Probably not.
Interesting that Billy brings up Chauvin here. While he’s correct about the overlapping sentences, although eligibility for parole might be a factor, it’s worth noting that the autopsy results proved that Chauvin did not murder Floyd. Both prosecutions were political and would seem to provide evidence that cops in some instances might need immunity. Having said that I disagree with Trump calling for any kind of broad immunity whether civil or criminal.
governments or their insurance companies, not the cops themselves, paid 99.98 percent of the damages awarded to plaintiffs.
That’s why removal of qualified immunity for cops must be combined with a requirement that they carry their own liability insurance in order to be effective. Problem cops would be dropped by their insurers, and we would be rid of them without them having to be fired, which is nearly impossible.
Make them carry professional liability like architects and engineers?
Given that they exponentially more interactions that can lead to suits than any other job out there…it is not a viable option.
Make them do that and prepare to see mayhem. Because cops would literally not do a damned thing for anybody.
Cops have immunity for imagining a gun was there when it wasn’t. Something you and I would go to jail for. But your right, try to take that immunity away and there will be a hissy fit.
Continuing to allow cops to literally get away with murder is “not a viable option.”
Theoretically the department would drop the bad cops because they are indeed a liability to the city, what with the constant lawsuits. But the police unions prevent that. Unions protect the working man, remember? Keeps them from being oppressed by eebil capitalist city managers and shit.
New evidence that we are going to empower leaders who are not in fact fascist dictators. Rather they are fans of kakistocracy, who believe that there should be always be a place in government for the dirtiest dogs from the dregs of the political class. Incompetence? [Says who?] Insider trading? [Hey, gotta make a living.] Fraud? [Says who?] Corruption? [At least I can spell it.] Ethics? [Only for those who can actually be held accountable.]
Both extremes are bad. Let’s use the Chauvin case as an example.
Chauvin was reckless in using a hold like that on someone who was overdosing. By holding Floyd down, he took the responsibility to monitor him and failed. That is classic negligent manslaughter. However, he was convicted of Murder 2, despite not a single shred of evidence that he intended to cause death.
Moreover, the other cops who were around him got similar convictions despite doing nothing but crowd control. After all, the senior officer had the perp and was monitoring him.
There were clearly political convictions to enhance the crowd, like Justinian throwing his tax collectors to the rioting mob. Who would want to be an officer? What officer on duty would take any risks knowing that they could be sacrificed to the mob at any time?
Unmitigated power in either direction is terrible.
Trump made clear in office that he’d fight legislation hamstringing qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that bars victims from suing state and local government employees if the way in which those employees allegedly violated the law has not been clearly established as unconstitutional in prior case law. It is why, for example, two California men could not sue officers who allegedly stole more than $225,000 from them during the execution of a search warrant, as there was no previous court ruling that said stealing under such circumstances is illegal.
I completely understand the need for the “clearly established law” doctrine. We have seen, in the past year, just how creative prosecutors can be.
A prosecutor could prosecute a cop for murder even in a clear-case of self-defense.
Or a prosecutor could argue that a cop obstructed justice by declining to make an arrest.
Still, lower courts have misapplied this standard. It is fucking obvious that theft is a crime.
I take your point concerning possible prosecutorial overreach but, first, QI covers civil cases, second, QI itself has been responsible for grievous injustices, and third, many circuits, particularly 5th, have imposed an amazingly broad interpretation of the precedents such that even if everyone could see that something was obviously unconstitutional, if there wasn’t a case with very similar facts, no QI.
Consider two California men could not sue officers who allegedly stole more than $225,000 from them during the execution of a search warrant, as there was no previous court ruling that said stealing under such circumstances is illegal.
Or cases where a cop’s action ran counter to training and to official policy but QI…in other words, even if a cop were taught that certain conduct was unconstitutional, he is deemed not to know that it was because there’s no really similar case.
QI is supposed to protect instant or near-instant decision-making, not extended action. It’s a pernicious idea which should be rejected by anyone who ever spoke up against judge-made law. Did you, Michael?
And it runs counter to 14A, because QI clearly violates equal protection. Pollce get more than the rest of us.
So hard to keep up with Republicans. Are cops good now? Am so confused. Republicans still worshiping the Thin Blue Line, except when the cops are D.C. cops, or big city cops, or small city cops in a Democrat small city.