Posted on Jul 31, 2020
Trump frequently accuses the far-left of inciting violence, yet right-wing extremists have killed...
1.71K
38
36
5
5
0
Office of the President (POTUS)
Terrorism
Protest
Violence
Responses: 6
5
5
0
PO1 John Johnson
You left out the rest of Goebbels's quote: "and vehemently deny that which your side is doing so you can claim the moral high ground". Now, isn't that better?
(2)
(0)
PO2 Harold Ashton
Much. I love accuracy and completeness. So hard to find in this attention-deficit world.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
To Justify the activity of the left you want to compare body counts. That's ridiculous. The amount of destruction caused by the current activities of the left is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. neither side is helping the American people and both sides are destroying the fabric of our nation. The President simply has pointed out the most dangerous movement at this moment in time, and since the far-right has remanded mostly irrelevant in the current rioting to somehow attach his rightful concern about the left's activities is not an endorsement of the right. The article is a political attempt to try and paint the president as somehow endorsing the far-right which he does not and has not. Frankly, its a pathic attempt to further divide the nation socialism leads to communism, and any American who wants socialism or communism or even Marxist nation has and will always be able to get the fuck out and move to those nations who have those forms of government.
(4)
(0)
SSG Robert Perrotto
PO2 Harold Ashton - first, this shit was happening before Trump, second do you really want to go there? 8 fucking kids were killed over the July 4th weekend where these riots took place, There was a fucking gunfight on the streets of Chicago where 14 people at a funeral home were shot, I will give a shit about BLM when they give a shit about their own black on black homicides and shootings. Until then, they can go fuck themselves. To clarify before some liberal dickwad takes it out of context - the movement "BLM" can go fuck themselves.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
Think police are racist killers? The newest data shows that couldn't be further from the truth...
Anti-police rhetoric is spreading across the country faster than the virus because disinformation about racist police shootings fuels its transmission.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Harold Ashton
Maj John Bell - No, I don't think that at all. And, it is not right to use a broad brushstroke. I have both police and prosecuting attorneys in my family.
Nothing lets you off the hook for actual and record proof of police malfeasance no matter how much you slice it. The police, through too many of their corrupt unions, protect the bad apples rather than turn them out. What's your cure there?
Nothing lets you off the hook for actual and record proof of police malfeasance no matter how much you slice it. The police, through too many of their corrupt unions, protect the bad apples rather than turn them out. What's your cure there?
(1)
(0)
Maj John Bell
PO2 Harold Ashton - Why would I be on the hook? Why would an uninvolved law enforcement officer be on the hook. I don't address an incident as a class. Each event needs to be investigated as a stand alone event. Just as I would not evaluate one suspect's alleged acts because of similarities with a a different suspect in a different incident.
My cure is multi-step:
1) No agency law enforcement agency should be allowed to investigate itself. Such an investigative policy steps squarely into the appearance of impropriety.
2) No investigative agency investigating police brutality should be organized in such a manner that it is beholden to the politics and passions of the moment. That is not an easy task. My first cut is that all local and state incidents should be investigated by a Federal Panel where the seats are filled with fixed terms, perhaps 8-10 years where a small portion of the panel has its term end in a given year. The panel should have a representative membership of former law enforcement personnel, civil rights attorney's and citizens with some relevant investigate experience (coroner's, etc.)
3) The police do an incredibly tough job. Very few patrol officers patrol with a partner. Things can and do turn South quickly. Even if the stars and moon align just right, help may be 3-5 minutes away or more; if the officer in danger is even able to get the distress call out. It should be the first priority of any investigative agency to determine if all was correct and justified, simple negligence, gross negligence, or criminal culpability.
4) My personal opinion is that qualified immunity should attach to a police officer's actions in any incident involving injury or death of a suspect only if they rise no higher than level of simple negligence. Gross negligence should open the officers to civil liability, and criminal culpability should open the officers to both civil and criminal liability.
5) A registry should be established for any officers that have more than 1 finding of simple negligence and any finding of gross negligence. Any hiring agency must affirmatively note that they hired the person, well-aware of their status on the registry. Any finding of criminal culpability, accompanied with a conviction, or any type of plea (nolo contendere e.g. et al ) should disbar the officer from further employment in public law enforcement.
I don't ask this to be insulting, did you read the entire article I linked? The number of unarmed citizen's killed by police officers, justified or not is statistically insignificant. And if you normalize the data with contextual information and confounding variables (i.e while blacks are about 13% of the population, they represent about 54% of the murders, or that the median age of the black population is 10 years younger than the white population and there is an accepted strong correlation between age and the commission of violent crime.) My take away was that it is a really hard sell to convince me that blacks are killed or injured at a statistically higher rate. Is your take away different?
My cure is multi-step:
1) No agency law enforcement agency should be allowed to investigate itself. Such an investigative policy steps squarely into the appearance of impropriety.
2) No investigative agency investigating police brutality should be organized in such a manner that it is beholden to the politics and passions of the moment. That is not an easy task. My first cut is that all local and state incidents should be investigated by a Federal Panel where the seats are filled with fixed terms, perhaps 8-10 years where a small portion of the panel has its term end in a given year. The panel should have a representative membership of former law enforcement personnel, civil rights attorney's and citizens with some relevant investigate experience (coroner's, etc.)
3) The police do an incredibly tough job. Very few patrol officers patrol with a partner. Things can and do turn South quickly. Even if the stars and moon align just right, help may be 3-5 minutes away or more; if the officer in danger is even able to get the distress call out. It should be the first priority of any investigative agency to determine if all was correct and justified, simple negligence, gross negligence, or criminal culpability.
4) My personal opinion is that qualified immunity should attach to a police officer's actions in any incident involving injury or death of a suspect only if they rise no higher than level of simple negligence. Gross negligence should open the officers to civil liability, and criminal culpability should open the officers to both civil and criminal liability.
5) A registry should be established for any officers that have more than 1 finding of simple negligence and any finding of gross negligence. Any hiring agency must affirmatively note that they hired the person, well-aware of their status on the registry. Any finding of criminal culpability, accompanied with a conviction, or any type of plea (nolo contendere e.g. et al ) should disbar the officer from further employment in public law enforcement.
I don't ask this to be insulting, did you read the entire article I linked? The number of unarmed citizen's killed by police officers, justified or not is statistically insignificant. And if you normalize the data with contextual information and confounding variables (i.e while blacks are about 13% of the population, they represent about 54% of the murders, or that the median age of the black population is 10 years younger than the white population and there is an accepted strong correlation between age and the commission of violent crime.) My take away was that it is a really hard sell to convince me that blacks are killed or injured at a statistically higher rate. Is your take away different?
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Past events of injustice do not justify current events of injustice.
Wrong is wrong.
Wrong is wrong.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google