Trump Says Cops Should Rough Up Suspects; Receives Backlash From Police Officials
from the a.k.a.,-THAT-Trump-speech...-up-until-the-next-Trump-speech... dept
Late last week, President Trump gave a chilling speech to law enforcement officers in Long Island. Trump has made it clear he holds law enforcement officers in higher regard than the people they serve. In one of his first directives, he flatly stated that disliking police officers is "wrong."
One of the fundamental rights of every American is to live in a safe community. 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.
His pick for Attorney General has backed this up, stating the DOJ will no longer be investigating civil rights violations by local police departments and announced a return to the good old days of harsh sentencing and unrestricted civil asset forfeiture.
The speech given by Trump shows a man completely enthralled by people in uniforms. It also shows his general disdain for anyone law enforcement officers might run across. First, Trump stated he was going to let law enforcement agencies have all the war gear they want.
You know, when you wanted to take over and you used military equipment — and they were saying you couldn’t do it — you know what I said? That was my first day: You can do it. (Laughter.) In fact, that stuff is disappearing so fast we have none left. (Laughter.) You guys know — you really knew how to get that. But that’s my honor. And I tell you what — it’s being put to good use.
This refers to the Defense Department's 1033 program, which is the reason local cops are riding around in mine-resistant vehicles and dressed like soldiers when kicking down the doors of hobby farmers. This is why they have enough flash bang grenades to set toddlers on fire and enough ammo to shoot at two people in a stopped car 137 times.
It gets worse from there. Trump actually encourages police brutality and rights violations.
Right now, we have less than 6,000 Enforcement and Removal Officers in ICE. This is not enough to protect a nation of more than 320 million people. It’s essential that Congress fund another 10,000 ICE officers — and we’re asking for that — so that we can eliminate MS-13 and root out the criminal cartels from our country.
Now, we’re getting them out anyway, but we’d like to get them out a lot faster. And when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon — you just see them thrown in, rough — I said, please don’t be too nice. (Laughter.) Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody — don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay? (Laughter and applause.)
Note that in all of these quotes there is laughter and applause from the attending officers. This is an important element of this speech, which I'll get to in a little bit.
But the essence of this passage is officers should treat arrestees roughly, possibly up to the point of severe injury. Not too long ago, an arrested suspect died in the back of a police van, apparently subjected to a "rough ride" by the drivers. This is the sort of thing Trump is directly encouraging.
Unbelievably, it gets worse.
And I have to tell you, you know, the laws are so horrendously stacked against us, because for years and years they’ve been made to protect the criminal. Totally made to protect the criminal, not the officers. If you do something wrong, you’re in more jeopardy than they are. These laws are stacked against you. We’re changing those laws.
These "laws" that are "stacked against" law enforcement are better known as Constitutional rights. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments protect citizens from the overzealous members of their government. These are hardly adequate, thanks to the same judges Trump claims aren't processing prosecutions and expulsions fast enough. And, apparently, Trump wants to change them.
The sad truth is it's exactly the opposite of the way Trump portrays it. Qualified immunity shields officers from their actions in all but the most egregious cases. Even then, courts must find something almost directly on point in previous decisions to affirmatively declare actions taken by officers to be unconstitutional. And that's before you factor in other benefits officers have, like the "good faith" exception or generous union contracts that give them two or three days to consult reports, video, and lawyers before answering questions about people they've maimed or killed.
Somewhat refreshingly, multiple police officials stepped up to publicly state their opposition to the behavior Trump endorsed in this speech.
The president's remark was denounced by police officials and organizations, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Foundation and Steve Soboroff, one of the civilian commissioners who oversees the Los Angeles Police Department.
“What the president recommended would be out of policy in the Los Angeles Police Department,” Mr. Soboroff told The Los Angeles Times. “It’s not what policing is about today.”
Michael Harrison, chief of the New Orleans Police Department, said in a statement on Saturday that Mr. Trump’s comments “stand in stark contrast to our department’s commitment to constitutional policing and community engagement.”
Unsurprisingly, the nation's largest police union couldn't be bothered to rise to this level of discourse. Instead, the Fraternal Order of Police released a statement claiming the President's "off the cuff comments" were being taken "too literally" by the media and "professional police critics." [Dear FOP Prez Chuck Canterbury: I am more than happy to add an additional revenue stream. Please point me to the nearest person paying other people to criticize the police. Thx.] Only after that did the statement get around to (wrongly) claiming all cops were respectful of people and their rights.
But the fact is the FOP statement likely hews closer to the rank-and-file's feelings. We saw plenty of statements from law enforcement brass, but very few officers stepped up to denounce the President's words. Former police officer Greg Prickett is actually privy to the rank-and-file conversations at various cop-only websites, and the general opinion there is Trump's statements were perfectly fine. (via Simple Justice)
I was discussing this issue at RallyPoint, where some immediately defended the speech. One warrant officer who is also a California deputy sheriff made statements that it is worse now than ever for police officers, and that Trump’s statements are appropriate. This is typical of the new mindset of police officers. First, his statement is factually incorrect. The crime rate is at its lowest level in about 50 years, and there are far fewer officers being killed now than in the late-80s, early-90s.
But that’s the narrative that he hears, because he’s only interested in the sound of an echo chamber, like PoliceOne and the Force Science Institute. It’s a common problem that communities are now facing. The over-militarization of the police has created an us-them mentality, and the police are taking the position of Anakin Skywalker, that if you are not a blind supporter, then you are against him, and are therefore evil.
Too many cops are caught up in a mass delusion. For many, the current low levels of respect shown towards the law enforcement community is something wholly unearned. To them, it's nothing more than the dull roar of assholes and armchair quarterbacks. They simply refuse to acknowledge their own actions have played a part in the current state of affairs. But there's only so long officers can continue killing 1,000 people a year during a period of historically-low crime rates before the general public starts to wonder if the problem isn't a more violent breed of criminal, but rather a more violent breed of cop.
Having the country's leader play to these officers' unfounded fears and baser instincts is dangerous. Telling them the administration has their back while eliminating federal oversight will only encourage bad cops to be worse and tell the good cops -- the ones who report misconduct and abuse -- that no one above them cares.
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: donald trump, law enforcement, police, suspects
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not helping your case there
Instead, the Fraternal Order of Police released a statement claiming the President's "off the cuff comments" were being taken "too literally" by the media and "professional police critics."
Whether you take the statements literally, or in a more vague, 'well it's along those general lines' it's still a terrible message, so the 'defense' they're putting up isn't any better.
I caught a clip of the speech in another video and the police standing behind him were not looking on with shock, they were not frowning in disagreement when he made those statements, they were smiling and clapping, making it clear that literal or not they agreed with what he was saying.
That the 'best' they could come up with was 'well you're taking it too literal' rather than 'that was a horrible idea expressed and we most certainly do not agree with it' is a rather damning position to take on their part, and most certainly does not help their already well tarnished image.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not helping your case there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As noted above the more disturbing part is law enforcement people laughing and applauding the giant turds that came out of his mouth. Justice and law enforcement in the US need an urgent reboot to bring them back in line with what the Constitution says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By improving police relations with the public? By having them not shoot unarmed Australians who called them to help or black men handing them a driving licence as ordered? By having them not plant evidence and otherwise abuse their authority, as recently uncovered in Baltimore? By actually prosecuting dirty cops when uncovered rather than giving them paid holidays? By having them trained in how to de-escalate situations before they lead to violence and use weapons as a last resort? By having them liaise with the communities they work in rather than treat them as battlegrounds to test out their new military toys?
*reads Trump's comments*
Oh. Escalation and counter-productive increase in anti-police sentiment it is. Par for the course, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“ ‘Sovereign’ …it's a word in dictionary between ‘sober’ and ‘sozzled.’ ”
—— R.A.H. (1966).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember reading a lot of suspicions towards mr. trump in the past year. Some of them even seem to graduate to allegation-status, complete with demands for special prosecution and/or impeachment.
(Note: I do know how to capitalize properly but I also think one can forfeit such privilege.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The alternative is the crap the people rejected; the message is: neoliberal frog-boiling or nutter. Choose.
Why can't we have better than that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What We Need ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What We Need ...
I'm sure hell will freeze over and the Sahara will become a rich forest before it happens to filthy rich people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What We Need ...
Two things are worth noting in this regard. The first is that there is no statue of limitations for crimes such as those covered by 18 USC 1591 (which criminalizes sex trafficking by force, by fraud, by coercion, or of a child). The reason is that the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act of 2006 removed the statute of limitations from 18 USC 1591 and from about 20 other statutes involving children.
The second is that the Presidential power of pardon, which has been discussed quite a bit in recent weeks, does NOT apply and can NOT be used with respect to state charges. Thus while the President could conceivably fire Sessions, replace him with a toady, order the toady to fire Mueller, endure the Congressional backlash, etc., and then pardon everyone just for good measure, that will have zero effect on any charges brought by the NY AG.
I suspect that some horribly ugly things are going to come to light in the not-too-distant future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What We Need ...
I'm betting money laundering. Chinese and Russian money. Money from criminal enterprise. Trump is going to rue the day his ego ran amok, and made him run for president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What We Need ...
(To make myself clear: not "sorry" in the sense that I don't want these things to come out: I do. May justice be done. But "sorry" in the sense that if it turns out I'm right, I'm sorry those horrible things ever happened.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What We Need ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"... a man completely enthralled by people in uniforms."
One of the many articles analyzing the choice of an Army general as Chief of Staff suggests that the young Donald, exiled to military school by his own father to be brought up "properly", learned to view the officers who subjugated him as surrogate fathers; they provided the only structure in his otherwise miserable, chaotic life. And now, when chaos swamps Trump's I'm-in-control mindset, it's a strong, dominant military (father) figure he turns to.
(Another faculty figure from that time also reports that young Donald was "the most manipulative student" he'd met before or since, and that he always managed to get exactly what he wanted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even when you try to parse Trump's words to give him the benefit of the doubt, it's still nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you perchance a venezuelan dictator?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or a Philippine mass murderer:
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/23/trump-called-rodrigo-duterte-to-congratulate-him-on-his -murderous-drug-war-you-are-doing-an-amazing-job/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Interestingly, I do remember reading about a man who had died after such a thing happened and aid was refused. A quick Google tells me that it was in Baltimore, a city recently revealed again to be rife with police corruption, and the city paid dearly for the death caused by those officers.
So, yet again, until Trump manages to get his Judges into Megacity One and surely force people to love authority, his suggestion is literally proven to backfire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Understand clearly the chain of repercussions that arose from that incident -- and I recite these as a matter of record, not as an advocate for anyone or any point of view.
Freddie Gray died. It became obvious that he died because of rough treatment at the hands of police, and it became obvious that they lied about it. It also became obvious that this was most certainly not an isolated incident.
Police reacted to peaceful demonstrations of community concern and anger by forcing confrontations, e.g., Mondawmin Mall, where they stranded hundreds of high schools without a way to go home, then ordered them to go home. This escalated quickly, as we all know, and resulted in civil unrest, arson, looting, and a city curfew. All ugly stuff.
Then the indictment of the officers came, and the trials, and the posturing, and the nebulous outcome(s).
Meanwhile, police "took a knee", to use football slang. Crime spiked as a result of that and as a result of loss of community trust: everyone in Baltimore knows that if you're black, you don't call the cops...because they're likely to show up and shoot you.
Since then there's been an election and now there's a new mayor who's just as ineffective as the last one. Crime in 2017 is up AGAIN in all the major categories. Police are still taking a knee and politicians are thinking about adding a year onto the sentences of gun-related crimes...as if someone about to do a drive-by shooting cares about that.
Read back through this and look at all the damage. This has touched an entire city. You can say "it shouldn't" but it doesn't matter. It HAS. This is what happened, and it started with police failing to take care to treat a prisoner with care. If they bust Freddie Gray, even if it was a bogus bust like most of us think it was, but he walks out of there alive and whole a few days later, then none of this probably happens.
And Trump's exhortation to cops to repeat this elsewhere is incredibly stupid and dangerous, because what happened in Baltimore CAN happen elsewhere. Police-community relations are strained all over the country already, and just as in Baltimore, it will only take one spark to set off an explosion. And there's no version of that which ends well for communities OR police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Read back through this and look at all the damage. This has touched an entire city."
The same city that's currently in the news because police body cameras has caught them repeatedly planting evidence. Where it's pretty obvious that this is a regular thing, and the only mistake made by officers is that they didn't know the cameras well enough to avoid getting caught.
Yeah, this is the problem. It's very doubtful that any of these things are isolated incidents, either in terms of times or in terms of place. This is the reason people hate cops and are afraid for their lives if they have to interact with them. Yet, Trump is claiming that increasing police brutality, by action or by omission, will make people respect them more?
The man is a fool, and a dangerous one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Stop hitting my boot with your face".
"Stop hitting my boot with your face".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The entire context, along with all prior context, clearly shows the only concern he has for people who have interactions with police, whether they have done something or not, is that they get hurt. Same as for people who speak against him. He is part of a horrific authoritarian culture. Just wait until he really starts eating his own most loyal people when it is convenient for him, or he has another fit of paranoia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Starts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He said they shouldn't protect them from harm, which isn't the same thing.
Most conservatives I know cherish the second amendment, as if christ himself wrote it.
It's sad that "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" aren't as important to them as playing army man with their guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
For themselves, that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dumb....dumb dumb dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you seriously think the way to stop people from being angry and protesting police brutality is to.... add more police brutality? Trump really is a very special kind of idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, Techdirt blew its credibility with 8 months repeating unfounded innuendo on the now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit...
And yet all that while, never mentioning let alone worrying about The Administration illegally hitting Syria for a false-flagged "chemical attack" that was actually done by US-supported rebels, ginning up nuclear war with both Russia and China, now apparently on verge of attacking North Korea for no actual cause, the Cabinet stuffed with Goldman-Sachs execs...
So now when you drop in a rare worthwhile piece it's relatively from out of the blue, and you've run off much of audience.
However, you're not necessarily inconsistent, as like the Deep State, McCain, Graham, and other neo-cons, it appears that Techdirt is actually for Trump's ginning up war, particularly to continue US de-stabilizing the Middle East. -- And let's not forget that Techdirt is for unlimited immigration! -- All of Techdirt's pieces and LACKS are consistently attacking America and Trump's MAGA notions, which may not be phony: even Goldman-Sachs executives might not be insane war-mongers as Lindsay Graham and John McCain clearly are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, Techdirt blew its credibility with 8 months repeating unfounded innuendo on the now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit...
and the Manafort thing
and the Tillerson thing
and the Sessions thing
and the Kushner thing
and the Carter Page thing
and the Roger Stone thing
and the Felix Sater thing
and the Boris Ephsteyn thing
and the Rosneft thing
and the Gazprom thing
and the Sergey Gorkov banker thing
and the Azerbajain thing
and the “I love Putin” thing
and the Donald Trump, Jr. thing
and the Sergey Kislyak thing
and the Russian Affiliated Interests thing
and the Russian Business Interests thing
and the Emoluments Clause thing
and the Alex Schnaider thing
and the hack of the DNC thing
and the Guccifer 2.0 thing
and the Mike Pence “I don’t know anything” thing
and the Russians mysteriously dying thing
and Trump’s public request to Russia to hack Hillary’s email thing
and the Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to
the Russian fertilizer king thing
and the Russian fertilizer king’s plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump
rally campaign thing
and the Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night thing
and the Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery thing
and the Cyprus bank thing
and Trump not releasing his tax returns thing
and the Republican Party’s rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes thing
and the election hacking thing
and the GOP platform change to the Ukraine thing
and the Steele Dossier thing
and the Leninist Bannon thing
and the Sally Yates can’t testify thing
and the intelligence community’s investigative reports thing
and Trump’s claims that the Russian connection is all “fake news” thing
and the Russian lawyer/lobbyest/launderer meeting possible collusion thing
and the secret meeting with BFF Putin thing
and the self-pardoning thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, Techdirt blew its credibility with 8 months repeating unfounded innuendo on the now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, I'm a picker, I'm a grinner, I'm a lover, and I'm a sinner, playin' my music in the sun; I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a midnight toker; I get my lovin' on the run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headlines [was Re: Re: Re: FAR BETTER BASED ...]
Yeah, but how 'bout “The Day After Tomorrow” ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, I'm a picker, I'm a grinner, I'm a lover, and I'm a sinner, playin' my music in the sun; I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a midnight toker; I get my lovin' on the run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALL CAPS SHOUTING [was Re: Re: Re: Re: FAR BETTER BASED...]
( YHBT. YHL. HTH. HAND. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, Techdirt blew its credibility with 8 months repeating unfounded innuendo on the now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, Techdirt blew its credibility with 8 months repeating unfounded innuendo on the now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, Techdirt blew its credibility with 8 months repeating unfounded innuendo on the now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, Techdirt blew its credibility with 8 months repeating unfounded innuendo on the now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit...
now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit
If by "forgotten" you mean by choice, particularly among the mouthbreathing retards who voted for him? Totally explainable - they want to stop thinking that they've been fooled so bigly.
It's amazing how effective sticking your fingers in your ears going "La la la la I can't hear you" is to the simple-minded uneducated conservative base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, Techdirt blew its credibility with 8 months repeating unfounded innuendo on the now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FAR BETTER BASED than your usual! -- However, Techdirt blew its credibility with 8 months repeating unfounded innuendo on the now forgotten "Trump-Russia" bit...
I don't think the loss of *your* confidence is going to cause Mike to lose many hours of sleep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a Techdirt Manual of Style?
President Trump gave a chilling speech to law enforcement officers in Long Island.
I'd assume in this case chilling speech means disquieting statements rather than using intimidation to silence dissent, though when I read the phrase on Techdirt it usually means the latter.
Yes, I can be a brutal pedant sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a Techdirt Manual of Style?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is there a Techdirt Manual of Style?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there a Techdirt Manual of Style?
Sometimes the word "chilling" is a verb and sometimes it is an adjective. It appears that you are capable of telling the difference from context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is there a Techdirt Manual of Style?
Now don't be confusin' the chill'uns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is there a Techdirt Manual of Style?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is there a Techdirt Manual of Style?
It appears that you are capable of telling the difference from context.
Of course I am. But that's why this isn't a grammar issue but a manual-of-style issue. Because chilling is so often used for a different (and important) idea on Techdirt, I had to pause and parse to confirm that it wasn't meaning what it usually means.
Mr. Cushing is allowed to use the language however he likes. But as a press correspondent, ease-of-reading might be important to him.
No harm done, which is why this is a nitpick rather than a gripe or grievance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is there a Techdirt Manual of Style?
Chilling speech: people are frightened from taking otherwise legal actions due to fear of being prosecuted anyways.
Chilling speech: A speech with frightening statements that strike fear into others due to what they are discussing.
Both imply fearful implications, the actual difference is in how the term speech is used. Speech in the first case is to imply forthcoming speech from others, whereas in the second the speech is coming from a particular individual. Both can be gleaned from the context of what is being talked about.
No ease of reading issues there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there a Techdirt Manual of Style?
Both can chill, but only the former can be chilled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because Trump is an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crime in the US, as Trump sees it
I suspect Trump sees crime in the US much like Miami Vice or Dirty Harry or even Lethal Weapon where the bad guys look like Gary Bussy or Miguel Pinero, where suspects are all two dimensional caricature goons that are best handled by a loose-cannon cop who plays fast and loose with the rules, but is the only guy who isn't either owned or intimidated by the Master Drug Cartel.
This would be consistent with how he has come upon the rest of his world-views. And the way he describes crime in the US, you'd think he was talking about Gotham or Cabot Cove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crime in the US, as Trump sees it
I think a lot of people, including lots of police, and legislators, see it this way also. (Including the police who are actually owned by someone, and who get really pissy and whiny about it when they are caught and actually made to face some consequences.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crime in the US, as Trump sees it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scaramuccia [was Re: Re: Crime in the US, as Trump sees it]
Scaramuccia:
(Hyperlinks omitted.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not remember reading this in the constitution, perhaps it is found in case law? Where is this stated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Where is this stated?"
You are correct that it is not in the constitution, but it is stated everywhere else.
Every time someone says you don't need a gun, call the cops, they will protect you, this is what they mean.
Every time a politician says, we will keep you safe from the terrorists and pedo's, all you need to do is give up your liberty, this is what they mean.
Every time you go through a line at the TSA, this is what they mean.
Every time you get pulled over by a cop and illegally searched, held in jail without trial, or just having your shit stolen by badge and gun point (Asset Forfeiture), this is what they mean.
Every time a snowflake thinks someone needs to be silenced or assaulted because of a micro aggression or hate speech, this is what they mean.
TD, asks for it, likely YOU ask for it, EVERYONE is asking for it. So we are getting it!
Because NO one cares about the constitution and will wipe their ass with it the moment it serves their political or emotional interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So,yeah, they dont know shit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Speak for yourself, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Mr. Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Mr. Trump
coming to a theater near you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Throwback Thirties
"...into the back of a paddy wagon"
I laughed so hard I nearly shat myself when I read that. A paddy wagon? Really? I have very vague memories of my granddad calling them that.
What a knob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paddy Wagons
Oddly enough, in the 1970s among my Hot Wheels cars was a paddy wagon (and called that in the Mattel catalog). I didn't know what that was or why we used them until learning about the strike busts in US history.
As for the car, it couldn't go very fast without jumping off the tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Throwback Thirties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do some research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But that's it. The rest of the world tanked when Trumplethinskin took office.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps -leadership/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Polls and ratings [was Re: Re: ]
Love us or hate us, the real question is whether the nightly ratings and audience share are up or down compared to “No Drama Obama”. Are more viewers tuning into the show or not? That's the real issue.
Bottom line: Are the advertisers putting out in order to keep the show on the air?
Reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Polls and ratings [was Re: Re: ]
Dwayne Donald Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho Trump!
brought to you by Carl's Jr.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Polls and ratings [was Re: Re: ]
Carl's Jr. brings you the fabulous Nothing-Burger™.
ZERO CALORIES.
Zero calories. None. The zero-calorie Nothing-Burger™. 'Cause nothing else tastes like it. Guaranteed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You failed to highlight the worst:
Uh what? Why should anybody be in jeopardy for wrongs committed by police officers? Is he talking about planting evidence or willful acts of brutality? And that he wants proof of such crimes by police officers to disappear or get disregarded?
In a land governed by law and justice, anybody doing wrong should be the one in jeopardy for it. What he is apparently promoting has nothing to do with either law or justice.
In Mexico, police get into jeopardy for killing and burying student protesters. Of course they want to migrate into Trump's U.S.A. But why build a wall? They seem to be highly qualified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia… Reversal of Fortune (2003 film)
A sequel to this movie, you say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
New World Order universe. With amalgamated “biotech” “bitches”.
Biotech bitches are like replicants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]