Do You Want A Police State? Because This Is How You Get A Police State
from the MARTIAL-LAW-[WIP] dept
AND NOW, A WORD FROM OUR NEW PRESIDENT:
One of the fundamental rights of every American is to live in a safe community.1 A Trump Administration will empower our law enforcement officers to do their jobs and keep our streets free of crime and violence. The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration. President Trump will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the public. The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it.
1 There is no such right. But that doesn't stop police defenders from invoking it, like this police union rep defending the burning of a toddler with a flashbang grenade:
You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both.
But is the "anti-police atmosphere" really "wrong?" Let's ask the federal government.
DOJ Civil Rights Investigation of the Albuquerque PD, 2014
[O]fficers used deadly force against people who posed a minimal threat, including individuals who posed a threat only to themselves or who were unarmed. Officers also used deadly force in situations where the conduct of the officers heightened the danger and contributed to the need to use force…
Officers also often used Tasers in dangerous situations. For example, officers fired Tasers numerous times at a man who had poured gasoline on himself. The Taser discharges set the man on fire, requiring another officer to extinguish the flames. This endangered all present.
DOJ Investigation of the Cleveland PD, 2014
Officers also use less lethal force that is significantly out of proportion to the resistance encountered and officers too often escalate incidents with citizens instead of using effective and accepted tactics to de-escalate tension...
At times, this force appears to have been applied as punishment for the person's earlier verbal or physical resistance to an officer's command, and is not based on a current threat posed by the person. This retaliatory use of force is not legally justified. Our review also revealed that officers use excessive force against individuals who are in mental health crisis or who may be unable to understand or comply with officers' commands, including when the individual is not suspected of having committed any crime at all.
DOJ Civil Rights Investigation of the Ferguson PD, 2015
[O]fficers frequently make enforcement decisions based on what subjects say, or how they say it. Just as officers reflexively resort to arrest immediately upon noncompliance with their orders, whether lawful or not, they are quick to overreact to challenges and verbal slights. These incidents—sometimes called “contempt of cop” cases—are propelled by officers’ belief that arrest is an appropriate response to disrespect...
FPD officers believe criticism and insolence are grounds for arrest, and... supervisors have condoned such unconstitutional policing...
Many officers are quick to escalate encounters with subjects they perceive to be disobeying their orders or resisting arrest. They have come to rely on ECWs, specifically Tasers®, where less force—or no force at all—would do. They also release canines on unarmed subjects unreasonably and before attempting to use force less likely to cause injury. Some incidents of excessive force result from stops or arrests that have no basis in law. Others are punitive and retaliatory.
DOJ Civil Rights Investigation of the Baltimore PD, 2016
Officers frequently resort to physical force when a subject does not immediately respond to verbal commands, even where the subject poses no imminent threat to the officer or others…
BPD uses unreasonable force against people who present little or no threat to officers or others. Specifically, BPD uses excessive force against (1) individuals who are already restrained and under officers’ control and (2) individuals who are fleeing from officers and are not suspected of serious criminal offenses…
DOJ Civil Rights Investigation of the Chicago PD, 2017
We found that officers engage in tactically unsound and unnecessary foot pursuits, and that these foot pursuits too often end with officers unreasonably shooting someone—including unarmed individuals. We found that officers shoot at vehicles without justification and in contradiction to CPD policy. We found further that officers exhibit poor discipline when discharging their weapons and engage in tactics that endanger themselves and public safety, including failing to await backup when they safely could and should; using unsound tactics in approaching vehicles; and using their own vehicles in a manner that is dangerous...
We reviewed instances of CPD using less-lethal force, often Tasers, including in drive-stun mode, against people who posed no threat, and using unreasonable retaliatory force and unreasonable force against children.
And here's more, in officers' own words. Here's an officer's greeting to a veteran who found his house surrounded after a mistaken suicide hotline call:
I don’t have time to play this constitutional bullshit. We’re going to break down your door. You’re going to have to pay for a new door.
Here's a police impound lot staffer, responding to the questions of a man whose car was unconstitutionally seized:
When Mr. Zullo asked the defendant’s employee why he had to pay for the tow, the defendant’s employee told him that the tow cost was Mr. Zullo’s fault for exercising his rights.
And here's an unnamed officer accosting someone for filming prisoner transfers from a public sidewalk:
You must be doing something wrong if you invoke your rights.
In exchange for a fake right, the Trump Administration is apparently willing to sacrifice citizens' actual rights. And hand out even more rights to an already-well-protected group. The only parts of the DOJ that don't actively make American law enforcement worse will be the first against the wall.
At the Department of Justice, the blueprint calls for eliminating the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Violence Against Women Grants and the Legal Services Corporation and for reducing funding for its Civil Rights and its Environment and Natural Resources divisions.
And if martial law's your kink, the Donald has you covered:
If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 25, 2017
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil liberties, civil rights, criminal justice, law and order, police state
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not your ordinary wrong, fractally wrong
You have to draw the line between your right as a citizen to privacy and a community's right to live in a crime-free environment. You can't have them both.
Not only does that 'right' not exist, the 'choice' presented is a false dichotomy. Give up all the privacy possible with cameras in every room, every call intercepted and every email scanned, and you're still not guarantee a 'crime-free environment', because, and here's the kicker: those that break the laws tend not to care about the laws.
Cameras in every room? A would-be-criminal will plan out of range of them.
Every communication scanned? Speak in code.
There's also the tiny little detail that any crime not pre-planned could, at best, and assuming it's caught by the (currently mythical) all seeing and flawless privacy destroying system be stopped, not prevented.
They're not offering a trade of security in exchange for privacy, they're 'offering' a trade of something that they can't offer in exchange for something very real and important.
As for the 'woe is us, the police are so unfairly maligned' gist of the rest of the article, from the sound of it Trump's plan of solving that bonefire is to dump a bunch of gasoline on top of it. Pointing to the smoke while ignoring the fire it's coming from. If the public increasingly (rightly) doesn't trust the police, and/or feel that the police get special treatment going even more overboard in 'protecting' them from the mean old public is just going to fan the flames, increasing the divide and intensifying the animosity.
But hey, I suppose I could give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming he's not being completely boneheaded here, because as the title notes, 'Do You Want A Police State? Because This Is How You Get A Police State'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You might be able to beat the charge, but you cannot beat the ride!
Tread carefully fellow citizens, be prepared for the full cost of your actions (loss of pay, loss of property, cost of lawyers, possible loss of job, etc.), whether you take those actions or not. Oh, and make sure you have your papers, they may not do you any good, but not having them will certainly cause you pain.
States can mitigate the attitude, but pursuing and implementing the political will to do so will be difficult, given the climate. Also that the use of social media to express one's views makes one liable for arrest, whether it is possible to be convicted or not, we must find other means to communicate our displeasure. Fear must not be shown because that will feed the beasts, making them believe they are winning. They must not win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bullfucking shit!
No, this is NOT a fundamental right! Never was, never will be! Liberty is the fundamental right. There is a reason for this saying... "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants!" Most people do not understand this at all.
"President Trump will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the public."
Law Enforcement never fucking EVER had the mission of protecting the public and only a fool thinks this. Law Enforcement has only ONE SINGULAR FUCKING GOAL, and it just so happens to fucking be in its name. Law Enforcement. If the law is unjust, the police are unjust. If the law is tyrannical then the police are tyrannical. They are are not here to protect you, they are here to enforce law. Several courts have made it clear that the police are not legally required to render aid, and several police are on record stating that the firearms they carry are meant for their protection NOT YOURS!
The 2nd Amendment is clear, YOUR are responsible for your own defense, because no one else can or will provide for it! Only a fool in shackles believes in this shit.
The #1 job of government is to protect our liberties as stated in the declaration of independence and when a government stops doing that... it is our right & DUTY to throw off such forms of government secure ourselves new guards for our liberty!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
morale..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Breaking
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/fear-materialized-border-agents-demand-social-medi a-data-americans
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!
Send them in. Hell, send in tanks while you're at it. Checkpoints at every corner. I'm sure that'll do wonders for tourism. Just like it's doing for the businesses around trump tower:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_bills/2016/12/small_businesses_near_trump_tower_ar e_struggling.html
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20161122/midtown/trump-tower-sell-buy-rent-traffi c-real-estate-market-trumplock-midtown-nyc
Sometimes the only way to fix this degree of stupid is to let them do it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whoa
That would be the same President* Trump who on TV yesterday called for the US to resume torture. If it's OK for the troops and CIA and Homeland Security, it's OK for police fighting the "horrible carnage" at home. His enemies are his enemies.
As for his friends, Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, has an interesting note about how a dictator controls the loyalty of his inner circle:
Bloomberg: Why Trump's Staff Is Lying
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not your ordinary wrong, fractally wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Actually, a lot of people do in fact want a police state. My mother is one of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bullfucking shit!
The actual problem is that a "right to live in a safe community" is fundamentally incompatible with liberty since it puts the citizen in the position of cattle: safety guarantees can only be given for extremely constrained conditions, in particular conditions not depending on the individuals' behavior any more.
People have a right to assume their part of being an active part of a safe community. And the more people will do so, the safer they will end up.
Living in a safe community is not a right, it is an obligation and responsibility. Choosing the best way to do so is liberty. It may involve hiring and tasking police officers for securing the perimeters. Which is a tough job and paid well. But they cannot substitute for the core of forming a safe community among free citizens.
If you close your eyes against your own responsibility towards crime and justice, you promote the law of the jungle, with the most powerful stomping over the weaker because there are no values telling them not to, whether those end up being the police officers or someone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Heck, look at the protesters at Friday's inauguration. Just the opposite of what you claim.
The police resorted to kettling, where when someone does something wrong they cordon off the entire area and arrest *everyone*. Of the 200 people arrested - including six journalists - you can bet that most will have charges dropped for utter lack of evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
join the Pussy Revolution.
No respite for The Donald, just attack
from day one.
This website is turning into leftwing
losers and poor ones at dat.
After years of readership, perhaps it
is time to delete my account.
Borders, Lauguage and Culture!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Out of site out of mind
So far in January 2017 Chicago has had 37 homicide with 190 people wounded. That is fairly remarkable since the new year has barely begun. The only response from leadership in Chicago has been to implement gun control laws. (As if criminals are going to stop shooting people because its against the law).
All this article is another blame the police type of argument that has no basis in reality. Anyone who truly believes the police are the issue is forever lost to identity politics of far fringe leftist movement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I thought this was the land of the free and home of the brave? Not the land of the policed and the home of the cowards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Maybe he's talking about the enforcement that hadn't been going on. Like arresting protesters that turn into rioters. There have even been reports that cops stopped policing high crime/majority black areas, for fear of public backlash. And crime went up.
"There have been reports." Yes, and all of those have been debunked by actual data:
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/12/myth-of-the-ferguson-effect-is-hard-to-kill/ http://www.th eatlantic.com/notes/2015/09/there-is-no-ferguson-effect/403132/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
On the other hand, who wants to deal with the fallout of a Fourth Reich?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Since this is now a political news website
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That pressure will only grow under a police state. You're a fool if you think we should not discuss politics at all here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But when a Republican is in the White House, if you express ANY opposition to REAL totalitarian posturing from the President*, or show even mild libertarianism, the same people declare you "leftwing."
Trump is signing executive order at a fast rate. With not a peep from those who - with Obama signing them at a lower rate than any President in over a century - still called it dictatorship.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Out of site out of mind
The police as a whole are not the issue. The police failure to meaningfully punish abuse by officers is an issue that taints the public perception of the entire police department. Internal Affairs fails at policing bad officers for a variety of reasons, most of them well documented on Techdirt (among other places): perverse legal structures that require overwhelming evidence of egregious conduct before meaningful discipline can come up, perverse rules that explicitly make legal conduct that would be highly illegal for someone not sworn in as a police officer, vast deference to even highly implausible claims, etc. If the police departments adopted and enforced policies to meaningfully punish bad officers, they could readily improve the public perception of the police as a whole. As is, there are neighborhoods and sometimes entire cities where the public rightly believes that calling the cops is an actively bad idea. Crime flourishes when the victims cannot or will not involve the authorities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Since this is now a political news website
But then you already knew that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!
I'm not even sure if I would be upset about this. Because when it comes down to it, the Chicago PD is the most corrupt in the nation (or at least in the top 3). Taking them out of power is a public good, and I find it difficult to believe the feds would be worse. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems unlikely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In 2001 a Cincinnati police officer mistakenly shot and killed a young black man. Afterwards, there were riots for weeks.
After the riots died down, District 1 police (covers downtown, Over-The-Rhine, and Queensgate) refused to go into the Over-The Rhine area unless they were specifically dispatched because they were constantly being targeted by shooters. My source? A relative of mine is a D1 cop for Cincinnati.
By 2009, U.S. News & World Report declared Over-The-Rhine in Cincinnati to be the single most violent and crime ridden neighborhood in the entire country.
The lesson: Have someone check your fact checkers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Bullfucking shit!
The people must have the right to keep and bear arms so that they can form militia as needed to defend against enemies foreign or domestic. this concept fails in front of a "police is for our protection" state because in order for the police to protect us, we have to be turned into defenseless cattle just as you stated.
The premier Armed Force of American is the militia, which is to be formed by its citizens. Unfortunately most citizens refuse the responsibility of participating in the protection of their communities making the entire idea of the 2nd an anathema to many.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
Like I have told mike and the rest of you, please do not allow attitudes to polarize the place to the point where people leave and this becomes an echo chamber. I am a big asshole and still able to recognize this!
It is important for everyone here to continue to point out the perceived failings of all sides. Communication is important that way!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not your ordinary wrong, fractally wrong
It does seem that your police do not care about the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The Enquirer covered the shooting, the riots as well as D1 officers refusing the do routine patrols of OTR.
U.S. News had a rather large section about the violence and crime in OTR.
Sounds like you are just too lazy to do anything and would rather deny the truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not your ordinary wrong, fractally wrong
We have the right to live in a safe community. We have the right to healthcare. We have the right to be forgotten. We have the right to choose a bathroom based on our mental state. We have a right to be safe from hot coffee spilling on our crotches when we put coffee cups between our legs.
When you expand your definition of "fundamental rights" to include anything that you think would be nice, you expect consistency from politicians as to what are "fundamental rights"? Seriously folks, much of this discussion of "rights" has been corrupted from overexpansion. You might as well call yourself a computer programmer because you managed to sum a column of numbers in Excel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That a large number of people are legitimately terrified and feel a strong desire for someone, anyone, to protect them at any cost shouldn't be a surprise.
It's sad. But utterly predictable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Any EO that attempts to extend beyond the POTUS managing the Executive Branch IS dictatorial. The constitution does not grant the executive branch the power it has been wielding from time to time.
Of course, Congress "could" kick the POTUS nuts into his neck for it, but lets be honest... they don't give a fucking shit and neither do any of you that voted those fuckers back into power!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know a guy whose brother is a Cinci cop 1990-present. His brother told him that he goes into District 1 all the time, on-duty, wearing nothing more than a speedo banana hammock. Seems crazy, but I have it on good authority, so we know it's true.
By 2006, crime in the district was down 19%, but street orgies and gay sex were each up 32% and 45% respectively as reported by Enquirer. My friends brother says it was all a positive change, and wants to establish that he is strictly a top, not a bottom.
The lesson: analogies are pretty worthless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am not allowed to use military might to save them... fuck no, that is wrong.
I am not allowed to tell them to fix their own fucking problems by rising up against their own oppressors... no, that is wrong.
I am not allowed to say it is not my responsibility to police every country on the planet.
I am not allowed to preserve MY culture, instead I must move over or allow their culture to stomp or drown mine out.
No... I think they are just envious and want what I am lucky to have, but they are too fucking coward to build for themselves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I don't do my job, I get fired.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not some cockamamie analogy.
Your logical fallacies are:
at first: ANECDOTAL https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
and then: BURDEN OF PROOF https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Hans wrote:
No one will miss you if you leave, Nazi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lazy.
Sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy cow, he's right! I've found his source that backs up everything he's saying. Officers refuse to patrol the OTR section of Cinncinnati.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Bullfucking shit!
Which may even have been a good idea back in about 1800 when state-of-the-art military technology was pretty much a rotary machine gun and technology within reach of the "average" citizen could match it with enough determination....
Now, the only people capable of coming within an order of magnitude of matching death technology with the government are billionaires who are more likely to side with government and frankly putting some of that stuff in the hands of the "average" citizen would just be bat-poop crazy (even more so than the government having it)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
They only found that he overstepped his bounds in one instance. (On immigration enforcement, doing what was arguably Republican policy when they're in office.) And that was pretty routine.
But no, Republicans were squealing because he was using EOs *AT* *ALL*. Yet another case of IOKIYAR. (It's OK If You're A Republican.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Police being shot at is in fact rare.
And last I checked, police aren't conscripts.
If cops don't think they're capable of doing a job without violating people's rights, then they shouldn't be in the job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bullfucking shit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
You should take your own advice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm a sucker for quotes, so I'll channel Yoda on this one: “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."
There's a lot more wisdom in that than most people realize.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Blame FDR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms
1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of worship
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear
Curiously, there is no freedom to *do* anything, only *think* something (#'s 1 & 2), thus providing as much freedom as an ordinary prisoner.
"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's what I will tell you. I work at UCLA and seven months ago there was a shooting on campus. That much you can Google. There was also a false report of a shooting in my building, which brought the SWAT team in, some members of which apparently forget the old rule "Never point a gun at something you're not prepared to destroy." (Or they just didn't care.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And last I checked, police aren't conscripts.
This! A thousand times this.
Dear, dear police, I'm not interested in you complaining about doing your fucking jobs any more than I am interested in the McDonalds worker complaining about how flipping burgers sucks.
Don't like the work? Go fuck off and find another job.
Just like everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not your ordinary wrong, fractally wrong
You have no rights, get over it.
Now, time to say your pledge of allegiance to Trump.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But .. Trump is the Devil! *Grabs pitchfork and torch* *Joins crowd*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
shut up and take my money!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullfucking shit!
An inconvenient truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
.. USA USA
protecting rich americans' interests across the universe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Which will be announced on Twatter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Doesn't the current governor of Illinois (notably, a Republican) have the authority to mobilize the national guard?
I thought Republicans were all for states' rights. I wonder how the governor feels about Trump sticking his orange head into what is clearly Illinois' business.
Or more importantly, why isn't the governor doing something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do you blame the citizens for their response to police brutality? Some would rather be abused by the common street thug than the police, they can shoot the thug.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullfucking shit!
It's not about matching firepower. It's about the willingness and ability of the public to rise up in armed rebellion. The Government is comprised of the people. There will be some that would pull the trigger, but I'm betting less than you think.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
I would like to thank you guys for all the entertaining and informative articles I have read over the years,and wish you well in your new endeavor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullfucking shit!
yea, we have NEVER seen a government abuse it's authority at all have we? Government has murdered more people than any WAR or group of criminals on the planet.
We can prevent businesses from being allowed to hire an army or personnel with firearms. We can also create an amendment preventing civilians from owning or creating nukes, but citizens should have every right to fight on equal footing with every member of government as per the founding fathers very clear intentions!
The other solution is to become a slave without freedom, where the police can murder you without trouble because you are a worthless pissant that will NEVER fight back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Yes, violence has been on the rise for a while. There is a question of a tipping point however, where police no longer feel that they can truly manage the violence, and where they are no longer comfortable trying.
The question of protesters that turn into rioters isn't new to Ferguson or any other event. A tipping point was certainly reached where the masses have figured out they can get away with almost anything and few will ever be punished. The police have come to the same conclusion it seems, and no longer appear to make an effort to arrest these people. They are now all about minimizing damages and protecting their own equipment and people.
Using op-ed and opinion pieces to try to establish fact is pretty weak, don't you think?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
I clearly recognize the left lean of TD
And as we've told you, that's not true. CNN once refered to us as a "right wing" site. A copyright maximalist has called me a socialist.
We're not right wing/left wing, because that's a made up fantasy that lets idiots claim "my team/your team." We tend to be big believers in innovation and whatever will most help innovation and the public dissemination of the benefits of that innovation. That does not fit neatly with stupid "left wing/right wing" memes. I disagree, heavily, with plenty of Democrats who seek to put in place onerous regulations on technology that harms innovation. And I disagree, heavily, with those on the right wing that look to interfere with civil liberties or who embrace greater surveillance.
But you seem to use "left wing" as an explanation for why we sometimes disagree with your view of the world. That's silly.
We're not left wing or right wing. We don't fall anywhere along the traditional spectrum, and attempts to classify us along that spectrum tend to only reflect poorly on those who wish to classify us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
could be bad fucking ass!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The sheep in this nation need a fucking shave!
Obama was a shit stain of a president, just like fucking Bush and what appears to be Trump will be. The sad thing is... these guys are not the first... and from the looks of things... won't be near the last.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
As usual, this is one of things with more than one interpretation, not all of which are bad things. Obama's admin mandated federal oversight of several police departments and there was nary a peep of anything except support for it. Suddenly when Trump threatens to do the same he's a totalitarian monster creating a police state. (which we're ALREADY in, btw, and have been since at least early Dubya)
Maybe folks could wait and see what his actual plan is before flipping shit and spewing FUD. It could very well be that his plan is to fix the problems in police behaviour that led to there being an anti-police atmosphere.
And Tim, your "counter-examples" in no way showed that there isn't an anti-police atmosphere (there is one). You merely showed the police often deserve such an atmosphere. That's a different thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
I said lean... this implies that you are not necessarily LEFT but that you match up with them in ideology more than right.
Yes I am well aware of the fact that my own biases are directly relative to that and my views of others, but the same applies to you. Your biases make you believe that your left lean is not. I have a right lean, but I consistently test out as a centrist. I sound like a conservative but think of myself as more of an original liberal.
And we can bitch about the labels all day long, they will never go anywhere so chillax!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So what's wrong with a police state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
Yeah, struck me too. And when you don't look, he goes for the whole broiler. Bloody vegans I say. All game is fair in poultry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullfucking shit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Time to build a wall around PolitiFact and make them pay for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To quote ottermaton
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm mean sure, the Democrats do it. But nothing remotely on the scale of what the Republicans have done for eight years.
The Democrats abused the filibuster, but the Republicans' stated policy of filibustering EVERYTHING is brand new. It was not business as usual.
Obama was essentially two more Republican terms, continuing the policies of Bush II's administration. Even ObamaCare is best described as "15 years of Republican healthcare policy until the moment Obama adopted it." But it all - Republican policies on military, immigration, healthcare, bank and business bail-outs - you name it - suddenly became commie Marxist socialism and opposed.
The Democrats have never blocked action on that scale. Nor was there the same level of protest about EOs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So what's wrong with a police state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bullfucking shit!
Correct me if I am wrong, but....
Wasn't the 2nd amendment written SPECIFICALLY to defend against a tyrannical government? or more specifically, the law enforcement representing said government. Whether it is a modern police force, or an 18th century army regiment.
How can Republicans defend both the 2nd Amendment, AND Police tactics/Trump administration's defense of them.
They should take up a career as a contortionist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullfucking shit!
Well, most wars have historically been started in the name of religion and far as I know the top killer, even in America, is heart disease. Added to that, a quick bit of research suggests there were about as many gun-related homicides in America as there were civilian deaths in Iraq from '03-'13 so that claim smacks of hyperbole.
But all that's rather beside the point. My points were;
A/ The "right" to have whatever BFG you think does the job is irrelevant in your hypothetical revolution when anyone capable of affording hardware destructive enough to match the most expensively equipped military on the planet is still not going to be able to afford ENOUGH of it to make a difference. Any BFG anyone but a billionaire can afford is likely to be about as effective as urinating off the windward side of a boat.
B/ Are you really claiming that the situation in America would be improved if, for example, the people who perpetrated the 136 mass shooting incidents last year had had easy access to, say, medium range missiles and military grade explosives?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not without doxing myself, no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well clearly it's tech related in the sense that TD has apparently figured out some magical coding for their pages that force you to read every single article whether you wanted to or not, and if so that's a wickedly impressive bit of tech I'd say.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
I said lean... this implies that you are not necessarily LEFT but that you match up with them in ideology more than right.
And my point was that if you actually think the "left/right" model means anything, you should educate yourself a bit. We reject that model, because we don't fit anywhere on that spectrum.
Relying on that model is what gives you a false view of the world. Getting rid of it is step one towards enlightenment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
How fitting, B movie plot inspired martial law invasion of a major metropolitan area ... hey wait a sec, is this what they were training for a while ago in texas? You remember, when Obama was taking over texas so that he could take away your guns - remember that? Pepperidge farm remembers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Like most politicians, they agree with things only when it serves their purpose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: So what's wrong with a police state?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullfucking shit!
Other things that could be bought with that much include:
1,000,000 SUB-2000s (https://www.keltecweapons.com/rifles/sub-2000) and 50000 rounds of 9mm (9mm FMJ munitions seems to cost, on average, $13 for 50 rounds, and that’s not even a bulk purchase which REALLY reduces round cost)
66666 OMEN Watchmens (https://nemoarms.com/rifles/omen-watchman) with 16713 rounds(https://www.wikiarms.com/search?q=.300+win+mag $17.95 for 20 rounds)
All that said however, you are right: an average civilian is not a billionaire. BUT, in the case of a revolution, one billionaire wouldn’t be supplying a civilian militia per say. Civilians would buy these sorts of things unless they were already armed. 1 SUB-2000 and 200 rounds would cost about $1269.23. Average household income in the US in 2015 was $56,516. Not sure what exactly your point was about the billionaire thing, but if it was about how many unarmed citizens could be armed, I hope this was informative.
B. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
TL;DR: Higher gun-ownership rates have a negative correlation to (read: reduce) murder rates.
Also, quoting Federalist 29:
"Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?"
Honestly, you should be more scared of a road related accident or heart disease than the still VERY improbable chance that you will be killed in a mass shooting. Furthermore, the cost to equip oneself with “medium range missiles and military grade explosives” is obviously high enough to dissuade people from using those. Otherwise, it would have already occurred.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
See baby rhino thinks he's a goat video for an example.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
Well who argue with proof like that?
/s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
Well who could argue with proof like that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, have to say, you were pretty much right.
Number of Executive Orders issued 1929-2017 by president:
Obama: 258
George W. Bush: 290
Bill Clinton: 363
George Bush: 165
Ronald Reagan: 380
Jimmy Carter: 319
Gerald R. Ford: 168
Richard Nixon: 345
Lyndon B. Johnson: 323
John F. Kennedy: 213
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 481
Harry S. Truman: 893
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 3466
Herbert Hoover: 995
Rate of Executive Orders issued 1929-2017 (# of Orders / Years in Office) by president:
Obama: 32.25 Orders per year
George W. Bush: 36.25 o/y
Bill Clinton: 45.375 o/y
George Bush: 41.25 o/y
Ronald Reagan: 47.5 o/y
Jimmy Carter: 79.75 o/y
Gerald R. Ford: 56 o/y
Richard Nixon: 69 o/y
Lyndon B. Johnson: 53.833... o/y
John F. Kennedy: 106.5 o/y
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 60.125 o/y
Harry S. Truman: 111.625 o/y
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 288.833... o/y
Herbert Hoover: 248.75 o/y
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html
>Trump is signing executive order at a fast rate.
Trump's Executive order rate as of now: 2 orders / 6 days
2/(6/365) = 121.66... but then again it has only been 6 days since inauguration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Whoa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
But people seem to have extreme difficulty upgrading their view of the world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My whole point in doing so was to see what kind of person he was and it has revealed that. There are some very thoughtful, very insightful and very funny characters that inhabit this space. He is not one of them, but then again neither am I, so .... why do you care?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who is "American?"
Is Trump stripping all but rich white males and members of the law enforcement agencies of American citizenship? That's the only explanation I can think of for this. I mean, he wouldn't lie to us, would he?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not your ordinary wrong, fractally wrong
http://on-t-internet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/has-political-correctness-finally-gone.html
It actually seems to be creating a fuzzy confusion because basically we've thrown empiricism out of the window.
Meanwhile, the fuzziness has resulted in the validity of the legally enforceable rights being called into question because of feelings. It seems to me that whoever has the strongest feelings and the most effective way of enforcing them believes they have a moral imperative to do so, hence the outright murders perpetrated by policemen who "felt" in fear of their lives.
We need to let go of the binary thinking that drives extremism in these cases; I'd rather not live in a brutal society in which people routinely behave abusively to each other but I don't want a crazy free-for-all either.
The Twofold Principle applies: the individual must be free to act and the will of the people must be respected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who is "American?"
― George Orwell, Animal Farm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Someone I don't know wrote:
*she. (Since you're talking about what kind of person I am, you might as well get that right)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not your ordinary wrong, fractally wrong
... yeah I'm supposed to be reasonable - why is that?
Yes, there is the bill of rights and multitudes of documentation detailing court rulings and precedence - but that is all out the window now isn't it. Seems someone thinks they have been made king emperor and would like everyone to admire his new clothing, who is going to tell him about his new clothes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not your ordinary wrong, fractally wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
They're trying to "correct" the staff so they write to suit their biases. Most of this appears to be coming from the far right, but there's a reason for this. The far right has successfully rebranded itself as mainstream. As a result its adherents naturally view anything that doesn't conform to this, particularly if it's in the public interest, as "left-wing."
That's how the partisan pattycake game works, people. It's where extremism comes from. Push back, don't join in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
After that the biggest left-leaning group is the liberals, which is split along market and progressive lines. Your "true" liberal is all about the free market and freedom of speech for nazis, etc. Your liberal progressive wants to ring-fence toilet usage rights, among other things. These are the ones who grovel all over Obama. I think they're planning a memorial service for his administration. After that, moving rightwards, you've got libertarians. Left of that, public interest, right of that, "voluntary-ism" and anarcho-capitalism. After that, we're headed right into neocons, paleo, and the Tea Party. After that, fascism/alt-right, anarcho-capitalism.
What is this "center" you speak of? The clubs that constitute the various norms use shaming to enforce the echo chambers in which they exist. We see it here in TD all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullfucking shit!
Which all sounds splendid, I'm sure, and terribly Rambo. On the other hand, even with all those toys, it still wouldn't run a war for very long, would it? Buying the toys is only a tiny fraction of the cost of war. Plus, none of it seems to get you very far against real war toys
Interesting Harvard study, BTW... I guess Americans are just more homicidal by nature than other western first-world countries then.
So, is your contention that all US citizens should already be stockpiling military-grade weapons just in case of a revolution being necessary? Doesn't sound massively practical considering that 30% of the earning power in the top 1% must skew that $56k average somewhat and in US equivalent, my own family would be above that and couldn't find the money to support a firearm habit. Or is your contention that, in the event of the hypothetical revolution, everyone will be able to buy all these things without any interference from the government and military?
I am. In fact I made that very point about heart disease when you were claiming government was the biggest killer. Yes, even in the US the chances of actually being in a mass shooting are small. I can't imagine that's much comfort to the coming up for 2000 Americans killed or injured in them last year. Nor can I imagine it would be improved if the probably unstable people responsible had had access to more destructive weaponry. By the way, the equivalent statistic for Europe (and Russia) is rather less - a bit over 200 when Europe's population is twice the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
What used to be insane is now right
There is no left
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Authoritarians the world over keep plying the same, tired lies -- and the people keep falling for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since this is now a political news website
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not your ordinary wrong, fractally wrong
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bullfucking shit!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"You lot, do my homework for me lest I call you lazy for not doing so!"
Whether five seconds of work or .5, the point remains that others refusing to do your work and provide your evidence for your argument is hardly an instance of them being 'lazy'.
(For clarity 'your' in the above sentence is referring to the lazy schmuck and anyone like them who constantly tells others to do his or her work and provide evidence to back up his/her claims, not you unless you happen to fall into that category.)
The one who makes the claim(whatever that claim may be) is the one who gets to back it up with evidence, if they are too lazy to actually do so then they don't get to expect to be taken seriously when they complain about others applying some Hitchen's Razor and dismissing their claims as bogus, even if they happen to be right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Out of site out of mind
IIRC, there are a handful of major cities around the nation where crime (especially violent crime) has spiked significantly, enough so to make a visible change in the national averages - but that crime everywhere else is continuing to fall, or at worst is remaining level.
If Chicago is one of that handful, the anecdotes given would make perfect sense, while still not coming close to justifying action on a national level.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Maybe I'm (badly) misreading the reports on this, but where is Trump threatening to place police departments under federal oversight?
What I've gotten from the reports on this, including this very article, is that Trump is threatening to crack down on those who accuse police officers of doing bad things, and to defend police officers against all attempts to rein them in.
Literally _nothing_ about that says "oversight" to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
But instead of doing the job they signed up for the police officers coward away from the communities that need them the most leaving them vulnerable to violent criminals. They much prefer to patrol safe neighborhoods and waste our tax money going after non-violent victimless criminals so that they can grandstand about how they are doing the community such a great service. Your post exactly highlights why police have been losing a lot of respect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]