[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities

ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

It does seem like Trump is losing the military. Word on the street is they are calling in federal prison personnel to fill in the holes in DC that the military won't. Thank god.
 
Frank

Frank

ScytheRexx said:
It does seem like Trump is losing the military. Word on the street is they are calling in federal prison personnel to fill in the holes in DC that the military won't. Thank god.
Click to expand...
Just what the streets need, guys with even less training and more willingness to brutalize.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Frank said:
Just what the streets need, guys with even less training and more willingness to brutalize.
Click to expand...
Oh don't get me wrong, it's still bad because prison guards ain't the best. There is two main reasons I am happy though.

a) Sending the military to handle protesters could end in a massacre, and I don't really like that idea.

b) In my worst case scenario in which Trump cancels elections and just tried to become forever president, he needs the full support of the military. By law, if no election is held, then the presidents term will end on Jan 20th at the end of his four years. Same for the Vice President. In this instance the next in the line of succession (Likely SOTH) will be sworn in as defacto president for the interim until elections can be held. They literally wrote into the system that the current president can not continue past his term without winning an election. The fact the military are not backing him unquestionably is a good sign that he won't get that type of support for some sort of internal coup.
 
Last edited:
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

My wife and I are arguing a lot about this. She seems way more aligned with the cops and guard. "The people are shooting fireworks at them, what are they supposed to do?"

It's been tough, because I have to keep explaining to her that...

a) Rioters can be protesters, but not all protesters are rioters. You need to distinguish them or it will turn into EVERYONE versus the police.
b) Cops have instigated violence just as much as protesters and rioters, they are scared and likely to lash out just as much.
c) Even so, cops need to be held to a higher standard. "I ain't willing to let my neighbor I don't know babysit my kids, how can I trust a cop I never met to protect them if I can't accept they will do things to a higher standard then my neighbor? If I have to hold them to the same standards then I won't trust them to protect my children."

I am trying to be calm and rational with her, but I feel like all this is hitting her hard, because she gets really angry about it and seems to refuse accounts outside of the police because "Everyone has an agenda." to which I have to reply, "Yes, even the police." I ended the conversation when she said she was going to "Teach me something" to which I replied, "I am you're husband and a cognitive adult, if you wish to discuss this so we both may learn something, that's great, but I will not accept you "teaching" me something for which you have no professional knowledge or mastery. You only know as much as I do on this, maybe a bit more, but also possibly less. So don't give me that." She just looked at me grunted and went to get ready for work.

Might be sleeping on the sofa tonight, but she needed the shutdown this once.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

I suggested to my roommate and girlfriend that if people are rioting and looting because of this, maybe police should make the connection that they have to stop murdering people in order to keep streets safe.

It didn't go over well.
 
Shakey

Shakey

If you think she’d listen to podcasts, both Code Switch and 1A have had some really good conversations about everything happening. I haven’t listened to it yet, but I also saw that Througline has a new podcast on the history of police in America as well.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Thanks. She might like those, but I don't think it would help.

I knew I was in trouble a day ago when we argued over Qualified Immunity. She made it clear that she thinks ending it will basically abolish the police force, because she does not think any police officer would risk being sued or jailed if they "rough up" a suspect. She believes the only way they can protect people is to have the power to be violent versus other people.

I tried to explain that cops still have laws that protect them during justified encounters, like no one is going to arrest a cop if they defend themselves versus an active shooter, but we need to stop this whole immunity when they notice some guy might have weed on him, chase him down, tackle him, and then knee him in the kidneys until he has to go to the hospital. We can't let them just justify every violent beating as "they were resisting arrest" and just be okay with it anymore. George Floyd, technically, resisted arrest, but that does not mean he can be beaten, let alone MURDERED for it. The police need to be held to a higher standard, and right now, we don't, we just give regular people more power to ignore rules whenever they feel like it because they enforce the rules.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

I'll say again that right now, frankly, every LEO should have a body cam on in every instance where they interact with the public in function. Failure to activate body cam -> benefit of the doubt lies with the aggressed party and it's up to the cop to prove they were in the right using force.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

DarkAudit said:
But say the aggressed party is... dead? *cough*Louisville*cough*
Click to expand...
The cop had better be able to prove he didn't just murder someone.
If a normal citizen pulls out a gun and shoots someone, he isn't assumed to have been defending himself, the same goes for a cop as far as I'm concerned. Keep the cameras on so we can see you were threatened, or we'll assume you weren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top