Usually slippery slope arguments such as 'gay marriage will lead to beastiality marriage' are just laughably out of the realm of possibility but a president relaxing the standards and thinking there is leeway with the 5th amendment provides all the shitty police departments around the country the green light to understand the federal justice department might be more willing to turn a blind eye with the current administration at the healm when they hear their president make these stupid and careless statements. This is why we need a president that has at least a basic understanding of the Constitution and WHY we need each bill of right and not just the second amendment. It's a shame we have fallen from a Harvard Constitutional law professor to this clown.
"The hand" is not provided by the Constitution, and Trump is not an absolute dictator - his speeches are not policy standards.
Amazing what Trump supporters will say or do to defend their support of Trump. "Its OK, Trump's speech endorsing and encouraging police brutality was not a policy statement".
Rojo is arguing what you said doesn't matter. It only matter when it's policy. That not only doesn't hold up in the space of public opinion, it does not hold up in the the courtroom.
A ridiculous defense of what Trump said... so, if President Obama had called for the immediate confiscation of all firearms the right wingnuts would not (rightly) screaming out at presidential abuse?
it's no surprise that police and scouting organizations are issuing public statements addressing the rhetoric of the President of the United States of America. Just as it's no surprise that Donald Trump refuses to believe that the Central Park 5 are innocent, after he took a full page ad calling for their death penalty, after they were exonerated by DNA evidence, and after their case against the police was settled. "They admitted they were guilty,” he said in a statement to CNN this month (November 2016) “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous.”
It's torture to get an east-coast media company to publish a statement blaming a spike in violence on a Democratic mayor who tried to suppress the release of a controversial officer-involved shooting during the height of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Strangely, you keep talking about something that runs along side the actual issue everyone else is discussing. You don't address the issue everyone else is discussing, but keep talking about something else as if it is directly related to the topic. Not only do you continue to do this, the tone that comes across is that you think are not just making points by doing it, but that you are making clever points by doing it, and that your discussion of a sperate issue running beside the actual issue is only common sense. You may not even mean to have that tone in your posts, but that's how it comes across at times. I started the post with "strangely" because it is strange, but it isn't strange for you. You have done this many times in many threads.
OK. Can you elaborate on how that led to the spike of violence in your view, and how that relates to Trump's argument that police need to be allowed to use more force to deal with the problem?
Chicago police were overwhelmed by the protests following the public release of the Laquan McDonald shooting. Rahm Emmanuel, mayor of Chicago, was fought against the public release of the video, not to "protect" officers, but instead to "protect" his re-election bid. After the video was released and protests broke out, Emmanuel put forth little effort to assure police that they could continue to do their job without being subject to prosecution-by-mob. Add to that, the federal government's policy, at the time, of probing into police departments on the basis of highly-publicized shootings, and you have the right recipe for murderous cliques, held at bay by the police, to wage near-undeterred warfare. 4-years have been shot, mothers lost to violence, college kids murdered on their front porch after returning during summer break, and even in some cases children as young as 12-years old being executed as "revenge" against an encroaching rival clique. By the way, Trump never argued that police need to "use more force" to deal with the public, nor "brutality". Chicago is just a tremendous example of this kind of backlash. We know what the FBI's 2016 violent crime report will say about Chicago, but what will it say about places like Baltimore, St. Louis, and Detroit?
Simple. Trump believes a officer can use his judgement to treat people under arrest as guilty. Hence it is contradictory to the second amendment. Your turn.
I'll ask again: what does that have to do with "the hand"? More specifically, could you please reference "the hand" within your response? That way someone such as myself can understand how "the hand" is related to the 5th amendment.
It's funny when police departments around the country are trying to do community outreach, and build trust within the community, Trump does something like this, that undermines the idea of building trust. Luckily, many police departments have spoken out against Trump's idea (which makes Trump look even worse). So hopefully this will all blow over soon before too much damage is done, and puts law enforcement officers at greater risk.
