President Trump Thread...

[Cotton]

I've ever seen you and Smitty agree on anything... until now.

Weird, isn't it?

 

[Irving Cowboy]

Can I consider myself a uniter?

 

[Smitty]

Nodak and I agree on a lot of the stuff that is so commonplace that it doesn't need to be debated.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Can I consider myself a uniter?

The problem is you're almost pushing people towards defending Trump. When most of us would agree that we don't want Trump again without arguing about this stuff.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

The problem is you're almost pushing people towards defending Trump. When most of us would agree that we don't want Trump again without arguing about this stuff.

I can see that. Point taken

 

[Smitty]

The fact that you and your butt-buddy are trying to call me out on lying while defending a known, visceral, verifiable liar tells me this is more about something personal you have against me... I really don't care what the fuck it is.

Trump being a liar doesn't make most of the shit you've said about him true.

Also, Biden is just as much of a liar. Perhaps moreso!

Lying is watching a few minutes of January 6 footage from an area that had not been infiltrated by rioters yet and claiming that that's proof there wasn't a riot.

There wasn't a riot by any metric.

And the fact is, Garner would have gone home that day if it wasn't for some fucking idiot jumping on his back and choking him for SELLING FUCKING CIGARETTES.

You are conflating arguments (typical of liars when they are called on their lies).

Of course Garner would have gone home that day if he hadn't gotten into an escalation with police.

The fault of the escalation is no one but his own.

Here's the chain of how things work:

(1) Crime committed (this happened).
(2) Police must apprehend/arrest (this is not optional, or society breaks down as we've seen with all the ridiculous shoplifting in California, etc).
(3) Criminal refuses arrest (this happened).
(4) Force must be used to apprehend non-compliant criminal.

It's that simple.

If the criminal didn't commit steps 1 or 3, he would still be alive. It's his own fault as much as anyone elses.

If you are trying to make the argument that the police overstepped their authority, consider

(1) the vast, vast majority of times police do overstep their authority they are either terminated or prosecuted,
(2) most claims of police overstepping their authority are incorrect, and based on ignorance or lies.
(3) the police have to use strong force to stop criminals even if they aren't "violent, dangerous criminals," because then no one would submit to arrest and you'd have a breakdown of society (see California, again).

And finally.... it's all avoidable if the criminal simply submits to arrest and lets his lawyer work out the details, which results in a just outcome the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of the time.

In this particular incident, the hold that the officer used WASN'T ILLEGAL at the time he used it. He used it for exactly as long as was necessary to get the perp on the ground. This wasn't a George Floyd incident where the officer continued to constrict his breathing well after he was subdued (though in the Floyd incident there is question about that as well). Garner was handled forcibly, yes, but that's what you have to do to 300 pound, huge resistors of arrest. You have to force them to the ground.

Tell you what... watch a UFC fight and see if an official will allow a choke to be applied for 14 seconds... most of these guys who are in fantastic condition will be past the point where they can even tap out after less than 10 seconds. And you pass out from the lack of bloodflow to your brain, you moron, not only because you can't breathe.

But Garner wasn't passed out. He didn't pass out due to blood not flowing to his brain. So clearly the "choke hold" was not a UFC quality choke hold that stops blood flowing to the brain. He was fully conscious after the choke hold had been released.

The reality was he was having a heart attack. That's why he "couldn't breathe" long after the choke hold had been released.

So what? Cops just aren't allowed to take down people who are resisting arrest?

Sorry, that kind of "reform," will never happen. People who resist arrest will always be allowed to be taken down. They will be taken down other ways, without chokeholds, like with stun guns, lassos, or whatever the fuck else, and then still have heart attacks from the exertion and die.

The only way of avoiding such incidents is to comply and sort it out later.

There is never, ever, EVER, a reason to resist arrest in this country.

Period.

For you to claim that every cop who abuses his authority is prosecuted is also a lie.

The times that an officer deserving prosecution does not get it is the extreme minority.

The system works.

 

[Smitty]

The problem is you're almost pushing people towards defending Trump. When most of us would agree that we don't want Trump again without arguing about this stuff.

Most of us don't want Trump again without having to make up lies about him, correct.

 

[Smitty]

Ah politics.

The sad part is I disagree on some issues with everyone in here and agree on some issues with those same people.

Shit I don't like Trump. I don't want him to be the Republican candidate. I also think Irv is off the deep end with a lot of the stuff he says about Trump.

But I actually agree with him on police brutality. So I guess no one is putting me in a box!!!!

No one likes police brutality.

The thing is, no one has cited any legitimately yet herein.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

No one likes police brutality.

The thing is, no one has cited any legitimately yet herein.

Yeah every scenario is different. I'm sure what I consider police brutality is different than what others do. So let's say officer doesn't have any actual suspicion of a crime, says I'm going to arrest you, person resists (Which in the great state of Missouri is a crime despite no reasonable suspicion) officer than takes said person to the ground in an excessive fashion and maybe someone even gets shot. Police brutality? I say yes, but there are plenty of people who say no, you committed a crime and should have just complied.

And yes, that is a real scenario that I have had to deal with more than once.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

I'm flattered by the time Smitty devotes to me. Bordering on honored.

Bottom line is, he's calling me a liar because I believe certain things. Doesn't make me a liar, any more than I could call him a liar for believing that Jan 6 wasn't a riot. He sees things far more differently than I do and nothing I or anyone else could say or provide to him as evidence will change his or anyone else's mind.

I have my perspectives and opinions. Again, doesn't make me a liar.

 

[Smitty]

Yeah every scenario is different. I'm sure what I consider police brutality is different than what others do. So let's say officer doesn't have any actual suspicion of a crime, says I'm going to arrest you, person resists (Which in the great state of Missouri is a crime despite no reasonable suspicion) officer than takes said person to the ground in an excessive fashion and maybe someone even gets shot. Police brutality? I say yes, but there are plenty of people who say no, you committed a crime and should have just complied.

And yes, that is a real scenario that I have had to deal with more than once.

So you are bringing up what I would say is unreasonable arrest, but not police brutality. The police officer is just wrong is his decision to arrest someone or his decision about whether a crime has been committed.

Ok. Yes, that does happen.

The question is, what do you do about it?

For all the left's whining about the social contract and the rich paying their fair share and all that, they don't seem to acknowledge that part of the same social contract is that you have to submit to the legal process. If every asshole who thought they were innocent had the right to resist arrest or decline to go to jail, society would break down. No one would ever be arrested or go to jail.

The solution to the wrongful arrest is to go hire a good attorney and the vast majority of the time, the system works. Conversely, how many people actually avoid jail by running? Almost none. Everyone is caught eventually. Whitey fucking Bolger was eventually apprehended.

If you are endangering others by resisting arrest and making the police force you to stop (endangering not just yourself, first and foremost, and the police, secondly, but also innocent bystanders) then you are selfishly and inexcusably breaking the social contract, and I have less than zero pity for you, I have contempt.

There is no excuse for it. At all. Anyone who does it, is to blame. Period. It's like fucking drunk driving. Zero tolerance. You don't do it. Like, I would say Missouri has it right. Even if the policeman has no reasonable suspicion, you do not have the legal right to resist his order of arrest.

This doesn't mean that it's impossible for a police officer to use excessive force, but the problem is, as you've done here, the two issues get conflated.

The officer in the Eric Garner matter DID NOT use excessive force once the decision to arrest was made. He had him in a 10 second takedown move and immediately released him once he was on the ground. The problem everyone has, including Irv, was that at the end of the day the police had to get involved in a violent encounter with a criminal over a relatively minor criminal offense, selling goods illegally.

Well in that sense, the real problem was the liberal-controlled legislature of New York who has overly burdernsome laws and regulations that they've piled one on top of another. Think a libertarian run state assembly would have criminalized commerce? Shit no, the reason that selling cigarettes like that is illegal is because the Democrat legislature mafia wants it's cut of every transaction.

The real argument here is that the Democrats in NY's congress "murdered" Eric Garner. But this far more relevant point is never brought up by the liars in the media or the liars doing the Democrats' work on internet forums, because it points the blame straight at themselves and their handlers, and the party they support. Instead they have tried to weaponize these deaths against the police WHO ONLY WERE OBLIGATED TO ENFORCE AN UNJUST LAW. But the police don't have a choice. They were told they must arrest Eric Garner, and they did.

Once that decision is made, it's on him for refusing. He chose to fight the system the wrong way and he unfortunately paid for it with his life.

But to bring this back around, the police have the obligation to detain and arrest criminals. If the criminals do not comply, they must use force. This is all part of the system working. I want my police officers bringing criminals who resist arrest to the ground. In fact, I want them doing it early in the encounter, before it spills over into a more violent confrontation. Get the guy's hands restrained and to the ground fast when it becomes clear he will not submit (this is exactly what happened in the Garner situation). The police did the right thing by subduing him fast.

The actual occurrence of police using MORE BRUTE FORCE than is necessary to subdue someone, where the crap is beaten out of someone who IS complying or who is no longer a threat, is relatively rare (think Rodney King). And almost always happens when that person has FIRST resisted (again, think Rodney King). These "police brutality tapes" almost always involve someone resisting arrest and then the police have to decide in the heat of the moment how much force is too much, and they err on the too much side. You know how to avoid that ass kicking? Just don't resist.

In any other common-law civil scenario, the person who instigated or was the proximate cause of the encounter is more to blame. That's the resisting criminal in almost every one of these situations.

 

[Smitty]

The other extremely relevant point is that once all these issues are brought in front of (often liberal) judges and juries, yeah, the police officers don't get prosecuted. Why? Because they did nothing wrong! The police are acquitted in these matters over and over again because even the leftists in the judicial system can't pinpoint their error with a straight face.

This is evidence of the system being "broken," to some, but their alternative would basically mean people don't have to go to jail.

Which, they said the quiet part out loud during the BLM summer of riots and subsequently, as in many cities where Democrats have implemented these policies it's the wild west for assaults, thefts, vandalism, etc, to the point where stores are closing down and moving out because they aren't getting the necessary protection from police.

This is what Irv is asking for, whether he knows it or not, though my guess is that he's only asking for it because it's the anti-Trump position.

 

[bbgun]

 

[Chocolate Lab]

That argument is so unpersuasive to me. I bet many of us on this board own at least a few shares of AB through some mutual fund. It's not like Trump is like a Warren Buffett-type substantial owner.

 

[mcnuttz]

That argument is so unpersuasive to me. I bet many of us on this board own at least a few shares of AB through some mutual fund. It's not like Trump is like a Warren Buffett-type substantial owner.

True, but it was interesting that Don Jr. tried to convince the boycotters that enough is enough and AB had learned their lesson.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

True, but it was interesting that Don Jr. tried to convince the boycotters that enough is enough and AB had learned their lesson.

I think that argument is that they've actually been one of the more non-woke companies up to now. Which I guess makes some sense, but to me the message should still be delivered.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Cowboysrock55]

So we have seen favorites lose primaries many times. Those favorites weren't like Trump but I guess we can all hope the rest of Republicans band together for someone. Obviously at 58% it doesn't matter but if it was closer my guess is some of those votes would be swayed away from Trump. Half the 58% doesn't think there is another viable candidate.

And honestly, I just don't want Trump because he won't win. Taking a loss and 4 more years of Biden would be devastating to this country. And if Harris is VP again, she will probably be President for half of it. Fuck no

 

[bbgun]

 

[bbgun]