A little 'test' about your law-and-order philsophy

[AlwaysWrite]

Any forum member(s) can answer, but this is aimed primarily at such posters as WAMO, 9andaWiggle and bbfreeburn.

If you dare to, please answer the following question:

:Who best reflects your personal law and order philosophy?

* James Comey or William Barr?
* Rudy Giuliani or Bill DeBlasio?
* Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell?
* Donald Trump or Joe Biden?
* Adam Schiff or Devin Nunes?

 

[9andaWiggle]

I'm curious why you keep trying to defend these guys who are obviously ineffective at providing this "law and order" they supposedly support and stand for?

If they're so great, why are terrorists taking over our cities and towns without repercussion? The way I see it, them doing nothing is the same as the "other guys" not doing anything. They may say they are for law and order, but their actions (or lack of) suggest otherwise.

I want somebody who will bust some fuckin' heads, put a stop to this terrorism and protect our country and her law-abiding citizens. Not some blowhard who is all talk and no action.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

I'm curious why you keep trying to defend these guys who are obviously ineffective at providing this "law and order" they supposedly support and stand for?

Dear 9andaWiggle:

Are you unable to answer because you are unable to determine which politicians are most in line with YOUR way of thinking, or is it because you don't know enough about them to make an educated reply? And by the way, I'm not "defending" anyone. Based on your personal viewpoints, it shouldn't be too difficult to answer.

 

[Djarum300]

I'm curious why you keep trying to defend these guys who are obviously ineffective at providing this "law and order" they supposedly support and stand for?

If they're so great, why are terrorists taking over our cities and towns without repercussion? The way I see it, them doing nothing is the same as the "other guys" not doing anything. They may say they are for law and order, but their actions (or lack of) suggest otherwise.

I want somebody who will bust some fuckin' heads, put a stop to this terrorism and protect our country and her law-abiding citizens. Not some blowhard who is all talk and no action.

This falls clearly on the states and cities. I'd have to ask a lawyer as to when federal forces could go beyond federal property.

If I were city residents I'd be putting forth a class action lawsuit against the city for not enforcing laws.

 

[sevenpin63]

Dear 9andaWiggle:

Are you unable to answer because you are unable to determine which politicians are most in line with YOUR way of thinking, or is it because you don't know enough about them to make an educated reply? And by the way, I'm not "defending" anyone. Based on your personal viewpoints, it shouldn't be too difficult to answer.

AW, it's because all your choices are shit! Behind door #1 is shit, behind door #2 is more shit.

 

[WAMO]

AW. IF YOU DARE TO, PLEASE STOP ASKING RIDICULOUS QUESTIONS. THANX GOOD BUDDY.

9. I LIKE YOUR RESTRAINT FROM THROWING F'BOMBS AT YOU KNOW WHO.

 

[9andaWiggle]

This falls clearly on the states and cities. I'd have to ask a lawyer as to when federal forces could go beyond federal property.

If I were city residents I'd be putting forth a class action lawsuit against the city for not enforcing laws.

I would argue, if the cities and states fail (or in this case, refuse) to address and stamp out terrorism within their borders, the Federal Government has every right to intervene on behalf of the Union to protect our country from being infiltrated and undermined by unfriendly forces that wish harm upon the country. Same reason I think all of these politicians harboring and protecting ILLEGAL immigrants should be arrested by the Federal Government and tried for treason.

 

[9andaWiggle]

Dear 9andaWiggle:

Are you unable to answer because you are unable to determine which politicians are most in line with YOUR way of thinking, or is it because you don't know enough about them to make an educated reply? And by the way, I'm not "defending" anyone. Based on your personal viewpoints, it shouldn't be too difficult to answer.

What I know of most on that list, I don't care for any of them. At one time I would have definitively picked Giuliani over DeBlasio, but he went off the rails the last few years and lost me as to where he's coming from. I was happy to see Trump win, but DC didn't get the message his election was sending (dis-satisfaction of The People). Or they did and they're hellbent on punishing us all for it and determined to put the peons back in their place. Unfortunately, that last one is most likely, but they really ARE so far out of touch with the reality of most Americans it wouldn't surprise me if they just plain didn't get it.

Now Trump's retreating into obscurity right before our eyes, so re-electing him isn't going to have much, if any, positive impact. Biden's no dream either, but what good is having a President (Trump) who's just going to spend the next 4 years in the fetal position? I mean, really, he needs to show some signs of life unless he actually IS trying to throw the election.

Overall, Sevenpin nailed it.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

AW, it's because all your choices are shit! Behind door #1 is shit, behind door #2 is more shit.

Dear sevenpin63:

Seriously, if you can't differentiate between the law-and-order policies of the politicians I mentioned, one could logically assume that you know little or could care less about the modern-day political scene in America. However, many people fall into that category, and most of them will be voting for Biden -- if they vote at all.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

AW. IF YOU DARE TO, PLEASE STOP ASKING RIDICULOUS QUESTIONS. THANX GOOD BUDDY.

Dear WAMO:

Why are those ridiculous questions? Because they would expose your ridiculous position on law and order? Or because it would demonstrate your lack of knowledge about the subject?

 

[AlwaysWrite]

What I know of most on that list, I don't care for any of them. At one time I would have definitively picked Giuliani over DeBlasio, but he went off the rails the last few years and lost me as to where he's coming from. I was happy to see Trump win, but DC didn't get the message his election was sending (dis-satisfaction of The People). Or they did and they're hellbent on punishing us all for it and determined to put the peons back in their place. Unfortunately, that last one is most likely, but they really ARE so far out of touch with the reality of most Americans it wouldn't surprise me if they just plain didn't get it.

Now Trump's retreating into obscurity right before our eyes, so re-electing him isn't going to have much, if any, positive impact. Biden's no dream either, but what good is having a President (Trump) who's just going to spend the next 4 years in the fetal position? I mean, really, he needs to show some signs of life unless he actually IS trying to throw the election.

Dear 9andaWiggle:

Really? You offer a unique perspective (opinion), but even if Trump is now in the "fetal position" (as you say), you underestimate Biden when you indicate that he's "no dream either" because HE'S A NIGHTMARE!

 

[sevenpin63]

Dear sevenpin63:

Seriously, if you can't differentiate between the law-and-order policies of the politicians I mentioned, one could logically assume that you know little or could care less about the modern-day political scene in America. However, many people fall into that category, and most of them will be voting for Biden -- if they vote at all.

There you go again, thinking you're smarter than everyone else, I think your ego is getting the best of you.

 

[Djarum300]

I would argue, if the cities and states fail (or in this case, refuse) to address and stamp out terrorism within their borders, the Federal Government has every right to intervene on behalf of the Union to protect our country from being infiltrated and undermined by unfriendly forces that wish harm upon the country. Same reason I think all of these politicians harboring and protecting ILLEGAL immigrants should be arrested by the Federal Government and tried for treason.

Well, if you recall the Dems pushed for Marshall law in the early stages of Covid 19. Trump clearly values states sovereignty and rights, good or bad.

It gets awefully dicey legally if the Feds started arresting elected leaders for not enforcing federal laws. We'd have to round up all of Colorado as weed is still federally illegal. Politically it would be a nightmare. Legally the courts would be a circus.

Theses mayor's and Govenor's were elected. At some point the pressure has to come from the citizens on their elected officials.

Just look at Rodney King. The Feds never stepped in. Bush Sr was president.

 

[WAMO]

AW. SEE, MORE RIDICULOUS COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS. YOU ARE PROVING DAILY THAT YOU ARE NOT NEAR AS SMART AS YOU THINK YOU ARE AND TRYING TO LEAD US TO BELIEVE. PLEASE MOVE ON GOOD BUDDY.

SEVEN. DING DING DING...WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!

 

[WAMO]

WELL, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE MILITARY HAS BEEN USED TO STOP WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW. IT AS ACTULLY BEEN DONE MANY TIMES. BY BOTH DEMS AND REPS.

 

[AlwaysWrite]

There you go again, thinking you're smarter than everyone else, I think your ego is getting the best of you.

Dear sevenpin63:

Well, do you know the difference between James Comey and William Barr -- or Rudy Guiliani and Bill DeBlasio -- when it comes to law and order? You seem to claim that both choices are sh--, so that would indicate that you would consider them equal (because it would make no difference whether you would choose Door #1 or Door #2).

 

[AlwaysWrite]

There you go again, thinking you're smarter than everyone else, I think your ego is getting the best of you.

Dear sevenpin63:

First of all, I know I'm not smarter than "everyone else." However, I KNOW (with absolute certainty) that I am much smarter than the vast majority of individuals.

 

[Djarum300]

9~,

So I was incorrect.

"Most invocations of the Insurrection Act have taken place pursuant to § 251 at the request of state officials, including the most recent—namely, President George H.W. Bush’s 1992 deployment of federal troops to suppress the Los Angeles riots. (That said, it’s not entirely clear which provision of the Insurrection Act Bush was relying on, as only California’s governor, not its legislature, requested the intervention and Bush’s proclamation and related executive order do not specify.) Section 252, meanwhile, has been applied primarily to situations of armed uprising, rampant violent criminality and widespread rioting. By contrast, § 253 has most commonly been used in the context of civil rights to authorize the use of federal troops to enforce school desegregation and defend civil rights activists. "

Can Trump Use the Insurrection Act to Deploy Troops to American Streets?

If President Trump wants to follow through on his threats to deploy the military around the country, he may have to push one of America’s oldest emergency laws to

www.lawfareblog.com

The above article is a really good unbiased opinion.

Now, the most interesting thing is section 251, which basically says that the Governor has to ask. Another specific article on how things when down with Bush Sr and an accounting by William P. Barr. That's right, the current AG:

"…I said we can get everything ready to use Federal troops, but that was really the only other alternative. And Colin Powell said what troops were available, what bases, and so forth.

So he said, “Go ahead. Let’s launch those civilian guys. Let’s not try to resort to regular military right now.” I said, “Okay, who should I have [Deputy Attorney General] George Terwilliger talk to?” Powell gave me a name. And in an hour, they had transports starting off on the East Coast flying across the country, landing at Birmingham, Alabama, picking up the FBI agents there, landing in the next city, basically hopscotching across the country. Then they had Air Force buses waiting at the Air Base busing these guys in. So we did get everybody out there at the time I said.

I was hanging around the Oval Office at that point, and the president was on the phone to the governor. He was on the phone to the mayor, getting reports, asking, “Where’s the National Guard? When can you get the National Guard up there?” Very much engaged.

While I was there, he probably talked three or four times to the governor and one of the members of the Cabinet who was out there in California at the time. He talked to him. He was very engaged. He talked to some civil rights leaders who were calling in, and he was very much in command. Then he made the decision toward the end of the day that more power would be needed, and so we implemented the plan of using Federal forces. That was an interesting episode."

So, the fundamental difference between now and then was that the request was made by the Governor and Mayors at the time. Interestingly enough, I only found a few news articles and NONE of them mention that from 1992 during the riots.

 

[Djarum300]

continued from above:

Now this is a rebuttal news article on the use of the Insurrection Act, which is just horse shit, from June 4th talking about the Insurrection act:


"The last time the law was used, a city was burning.

Citing the "urgent need to restore order," President George H.W. Bush mobilized federal troops and federal law enforcement officers to help quell the violent fervor that had overtaken parts of Los Angeles after four police officers accused of beating motorist Rodney King were found not guilty.

The circumstances surrounding those riots differ greatly from those of the protests of today.

In 1992, the riots weren't the peaceful protests seen recently throughout the country and around the world. People weren't urging police officers to march with them or to take a knee with them. Instead, the rioting was concentrated in Los Angeles neighborhoods targeted because of what they represented to marginalized and oppressed communities.

"L.A. was the epicenter for the 1992 riots. Minneapolis might have been the epicenter for George Floyd protests, but this is now a national earthquake," Southers said.

Looters zeroed in on Koreatown, in part, because a Korean business owner had killed a black teenager over a bottle of orange juice just two weeks after King was beaten in March 1991. Latasha Harlins, 15, didn't die in Koreatown, but the race of her killer fractured an already widening rift between black and Korean communities in Southern California.

"They also took on businesses in their community that were not owned by black individuals," said Dr. Robert Tranquada, former dean of the Keck School of Medicine at USC, who was a member of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, which was formed in April 1991 after the beating of King. "That was a clear pattern. But this time we're not seeing that."

By the time Bush invoked the Insurrection Act in May 1992, dozens of Angelenos had been killed. Businesses weren't just looted; they were burned to the ground. Entire city blocks had been reduced to rubble. Dusk-to-dawn curfews were in effect, and millions of residents were scared to leave their homes.

Southers remembers watching people storm the former headquarters of the Los Angeles Police Department and thinking the city was lost. It later came out that Mayor Tom Bradley hadn't spoken with Police Chief Daryl Gates for several months leading up to the riots. Their fractured relationship hampered the LAPD in its response to violence and looting.



"No chief wants to say 'I need the [National Guard here].' When that decision comes, it's time to check your ego at the door," Southers said. "In 1992, Gates was like 'we got this covered,' and his troops got overrun."

It didn't take long for that to happen. The riots erupted within hours of the four officers' being acquitted, largely because of ongoing distrust between police and the black community. Bradley, who was African American, told The Associated Press in 1991 that he hadn't been allowed to ride with a white officer in the 1940s even though he was a member of the force.

The riots changed how the LAPD functioned. In the following decades, the department hired more people of color into its lower and upper ranks. Some officers turned into community liaisons and became more involved in the daily lives of residents. Police were encouraged to stop driving through neighborhoods and to learn the names of people who lived in them, instead.

Southers worries that if a military response to the current unrest were to sour relations between communities and law enforcement, police officers would ultimately pay the price, not just in Los Angeles but also across the country.

"When the National Guard leaves, the officers are still going to be there," he said. "Trust is going to disintegrate."

Three days into the 1992 riots, Bush deployed 4,000 soldiers and Marines to Los Angeles to end what The Washington Post called "days of urban anarchy." Bush also mobilized 1,000 federal troops trained in urban policing.

More than 4,000 National Guard members had already been in place by the time federal assistance arrived in Los Angeles. Seeing the armored vehicles roll in seemed to reassure law-abiding business owners and perhaps force potential looters to think twice.

The scene unfolding across the country today is demonstrably different. Protesters are young and old, men and women of all ages, races and incomes pouring into the streets in a show of solidarity for Floyd and others like him. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was seen demonstrating in Washington, D.C., with her husband and their golden retriever in tow.

Eyewitness accounts suggest that some of the violence across the country was started by law enforcement. A crowd demonstrating outside the White House was hit with tear gas this week to facilitate a presidential photo opportunity, and journalists have been injured or arrested."

Trump invoking Insurrection Act could undo years of police reform, experts warn

"We don't need to be telling people that we're going to dominate them. That language doesn't work," said an expert in national security.

www.nbcnews.com

This article is dated June 4. Even then much of the violence was property destruction there were, even as June 4th, several people dead across the country due to the Riots. Since this article, we had CHAZ/CHOP which wasn't really much different than the the overtaking of Korea town in L.A.

 

[bbfreeburn]

You know my answers. You must just love paper tigers

There you go again, thinking you're smarter than everyone else, I think your ego is getting the best of you.

but 7, you know that he is the “only” one here with an IQ of 140. Oh, wait, ..