LIVE COVERAGE of Rally for President Trump in DC! 01/06/2021

[jhkim]

I welcome more support for civil rights against the government. No one should be rounded up and locked in solitary with no trial and frequent beatings, regardless of whether they are left-leaning or right-leaning. And I've been advocating for this for decades.

      I am sure you were right up front when Randy Weaver was getting his wife and kid slaughtered in the mountains.

Well, the Feebs did harass the living shit out of the Weather Underground.

But funny how that all worked out.

Now in all fairness, all WU did was plant some bombs...
and obviously the one at the capitol was far less devastating than the 1-6-21 breach.

I mean it isn't like Weaver at all.  He had the audacity to refuse to infiltrate a dangerous organization and become an undercover informant for the FBI...of course that means they needed to have a sniper murder his wife as an object lesson.

What are you expecting that I should have done about Randy Weaver, oggsmash? What did you do about Randy Weaver? I called for restrictions on federal power. Back then, the ACLU and the NRA had a joint statement condemning Ruby Ridge and calling for a controls on law officers. From 1995,

In an unusual alliance, gun-rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union banded together and urged new controls Tuesday to prevent abuse of power by federal law officers.

The coalition cited the bloody confrontations at Waco, Texas, and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, as examples of increasing misuse of deadly force and military-style tactics by federal agents.

``We want change before there are more Wacos and Ruby Ridges,″ Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington office, told a news conference.

In a letter to congressional leaders, the 14-member coalition called for a national commission to review federal law enforcement policies and reassert constitutional rights.

The group also wants the government to create a permanent oversight board _ akin to the citizens' review boards that oversee many local police departments _ to watch over federal police agencies.

Justice Department officials say Congress already provides the necessary oversight. The Waco and Ruby Ridge standoffs have been reviewed in several Hill hearings. At a hearing last week, the Clinton administration announced new rules to clarify when federal agents are authorized to shoot.

Conflicting reports about mistakes made by the FBI at Ruby Ridge prove that law enforcement agencies cannot be trusted to investigate themselves, the group's letter said.

The group called on Congress and the president to:

• Clarify and tighten rules that govern use deadly force.
• Re-examine laws governing when the military can assist police.
• Allow officers to use ``dynamic entry″ _ bursting through doors without first knocking and identifying themselves _ only under the most critical circumstances.
• More severely punish law officers who lie or mislead the courts when applying for search warrants.
• Pass legislation to void a Supreme Court decision allowing evidence obtained under faulty search warrants to be used in court if police acted in ``good faith.″
• Require law officers to consult qualified scholars when dealing with ideological or religious groups, such as in the 1993 siege at the Branch Davidians' compound in Waco.

Source: https://apnews.com/article/f322f0c09af82f5b5446fe17b91e387f

I supported these calls for change at the time.

[Ghostmaker]

That newspost was made in 1995. What changed. Anything?

'Cause a couple years back we had the OIG report into the FBI where it came out that the Feebs were taking bribes in exchange for leaking info to the press, and were so infected with politics it's entirely questionable if they could ever be objective in an investigation.

[jhkim]

That newspost was made in 1995. What changed. Anything?

'Cause a couple years back we had the OIG report into the FBI where it came out that the Feebs were taking bribes in exchange for leaking info to the press, and were so infected with politics it's entirely questionable if they could ever be objective in an investigation.

Not much, because the cause hasn't been very popular.

Mostly Americans have seen attempts to limit police and federal powers as being anti-law-and-order. Clinton supported the War on Drugs; Bush majorly stepped up powers after 9/11; and Obama and Trump both continued previous policies, with no rollback or significant reform.

[Ghostmaker]

That newspost was made in 1995. What changed. Anything?

'Cause a couple years back we had the OIG report into the FBI where it came out that the Feebs were taking bribes in exchange for leaking info to the press, and were so infected with politics it's entirely questionable if they could ever be objective in an investigation.

Not much, because the cause hasn't been very popular.

Mostly Americans have seen attempts to limit police and federal powers as being anti-law-and-order. Clinton supported the War on Drugs; Bush majorly stepped up powers after 9/11; and Obama and Trump both continued previous policies, with no rollback or significant reform.

https://csgjusticecenter.org/2018/12/21/president-trump-signs-first-step-act-into-law-reauthorizing-second-chance-act/

Whatever.

[jhkim]

That newspost was made in 1995. What changed. Anything?

'Cause a couple years back we had the OIG report into the FBI where it came out that the Feebs were taking bribes in exchange for leaking info to the press, and were so infected with politics it's entirely questionable if they could ever be objective in an investigation.

Not much, because the cause hasn't been very popular.

Mostly Americans have seen attempts to limit police and federal powers as being anti-law-and-order. Clinton supported the War on Drugs; Bush majorly stepped up powers after 9/11; and Obama and Trump both continued previous policies, with no rollback or significant reform.

https://csgjusticecenter.org/2018/12/21/president-trump-signs-first-step-act-into-law-reauthorizing-second-chance-act/

Whatever.

That bill is about prison reform, which would have no effect on Ruby Ridge since they weren't arrested yet.

I approve of Obama's and Trump's prison reform measures. It's just that I thought of it as a different topic than reducing police and federal powers - i.e. what police can do *before* you are thrown in jail.

[moonsweeper]

That newspost was made in 1995. What changed. Anything?

'Cause a couple years back we had the OIG report into the FBI where it came out that the Feebs were taking bribes in exchange for leaking info to the press, and were so infected with politics it's entirely questionable if they could ever be objective in an investigation.

Not much, because the cause hasn't been very popular.

Mostly Americans have seen attempts to limit police and federal powers as being anti-law-and-order. Clinton supported the War on Drugs; Bush majorly stepped up powers after 9/11; and Obama and Trump both continued previous policies, with no rollback or significant reform.

https://csgjusticecenter.org/2018/12/21/president-trump-signs-first-step-act-into-law-reauthorizing-second-chance-act/

Whatever.

That bill is about prison reform, which would have no effect on Ruby Ridge since they weren't arrested yet.

I approve of Obama's and Trump's prison reform measures. It's just that I thought of it as a different topic than reducing police and federal powers - i.e. what police can do *before* you are thrown in jail.

It is already illegal to kill someone who is not posing a threat...even more so under the police (federal or local) ROE...there is a reason I used the very specific legal term 'murder' when referencing Weaver's wife.

...and Trump tried to start reforming the FBI, but that was used to launch a special prosecution against him.

[jhkim]

I approve of Obama's and Trump's prison reform measures. It's just that I thought of it as a different topic than reducing police and federal powers - i.e. what police can do *before* you are thrown in jail.

It is already illegal to kill someone who is not posing a threat...even more so under the police (federal or local) ROE...there is a reason I used the very specific legal term 'murder' when referencing Weaver's wife.

...and Trump tried to start reforming the FBI, but that was used to launch a special prosecution against him.

It isn't illegal for the police to kill. The police might violate department rules, but if they are even remotely doing their job - they are protected by "qualified immunity". It seems nearly impossible to prosecute or sue police if they even just think they are doing their job. In the case of Weaver, I think they settled - because it would be terrible PR if they went to court. But, for example, I just read about where a policeman shot a 10-year-old child who was lying face down on the ground - while aiming for a dog that hadn't attacked - and it was upheld in court as covered by immunity.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/case-dismissed-deputy-aims-for-dog-but-shoots-kid/6NBUYNgAPMsGfC84LEot3O/

More on qualified immunity:

https://www.thoughtco.com/qualified-immunity-definition-and-examples-5081905

I think the law needs to be changed.

[Pat]

We should give qualified immunity to everyone. Privilege for the people!

[Shasarak]

We should give qualified immunity to everyone. Privilege for the people!

Do you think people are going to get a vaccine that only gives qualified immunity?

[moonsweeper]

I approve of Obama's and Trump's prison reform measures. It's just that I thought of it as a different topic than reducing police and federal powers - i.e. what police can do *before* you are thrown in jail.

It is already illegal to kill someone who is not posing a threat...even more so under the police (federal or local) ROE...there is a reason I used the very specific legal term 'murder' when referencing Weaver's wife.

...and Trump tried to start reforming the FBI, but that was used to launch a special prosecution against him.

It isn't illegal for the police to kill. The police might violate department rules, but if they are even remotely doing their job - they are protected by "qualified immunity". It seems nearly impossible to prosecute or sue police if they even just think they are doing their job. In the case of Weaver, I think they settled - because it would be terrible PR if they went to court. But, for example, I just read about where a policeman shot a 10-year-old child who was lying face down on the ground - while aiming for a dog that hadn't attacked - and it was upheld in court as covered by immunity.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/case-dismissed-deputy-aims-for-dog-but-shoots-kid/6NBUYNgAPMsGfC84LEot3O/

More on qualified immunity:

https://www.thoughtco.com/qualified-immunity-definition-and-examples-5081905

I think the law needs to be changed.

Yeah, I know what qualified immunity is.

Reread what I posted...

I never said it was illegal for the police to kill someone, I said it was illegal if the target was not presenting a threat...

There is a reason there was a big dust-up about the ROE at Ruby Ridge...and please do some research on the incident...

Do you ever notice how the police really try to settle out of court when qualified immunity isn't going to save them from a civil suit.

[oggsmash]

I approve of Obama's and Trump's prison reform measures. It's just that I thought of it as a different topic than reducing police and federal powers - i.e. what police can do *before* you are thrown in jail.

It is already illegal to kill someone who is not posing a threat...even more so under the police (federal or local) ROE...there is a reason I used the very specific legal term 'murder' when referencing Weaver's wife.

...and Trump tried to start reforming the FBI, but that was used to launch a special prosecution against him.

It isn't illegal for the police to kill. The police might violate department rules, but if they are even remotely doing their job - they are protected by "qualified immunity". It seems nearly impossible to prosecute or sue police if they even just think they are doing their job. In the case of Weaver, I think they settled - because it would be terrible PR if they went to court. But, for example, I just read about where a policeman shot a 10-year-old child who was lying face down on the ground - while aiming for a dog that hadn't attacked - and it was upheld in court as covered by immunity.

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/case-dismissed-deputy-aims-for-dog-but-shoots-kid/6NBUYNgAPMsGfC84LEot3O/

More on qualified immunity:

https://www.thoughtco.com/qualified-immunity-definition-and-examples-5081905

I think the law needs to be changed.

   That Atlanta article is very short on details.  The only details about the dog come from the family, not testimony of officers.  Without reading the actual case I do not know how threatening the dog was, That certainly played a direct role in the Judges on that circuit dismissing the case and I need to know more. 

   Get rid of or restrict qualified immunity, it will be a very interesting experiment.  I am all for it. 

   I also thank Obama for all the positive things Trump did.

[Ghostmaker]

'Get jobs in the renewable energy industry' they say. And yet:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-looks-abroad-electric-vehicle-metals-blow-us-miners-2021-05-25/

But hey, no more mean tweets amirite?

[Ratman_tf]

'Get jobs in the renewable energy industry' they say. And yet:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/biden-looks-abroad-electric-vehicle-metals-blow-us-miners-2021-05-25/

But hey, no more mean tweets amirite?

I wonder why?

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/01/technology/cobalt-congo-child-labor-car-smartphone-batteries/index.html

Everyone who voted for Biden should have their fucking noses rubbed in this shit.

[Brad]

So if you voted for Biden that means you support child slave labor to mine metals for your electric cars so you can feel better about destroying the environment?

[KingCheops]

So if you voted for Biden that means you support child slave labor to mine metals for your electric cars so you can feel better about destroying the environment?

Don't point out their hypocrisy!  It literally melts their brains!