Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 22

[thaiboxerken]

Ann Coulter recently Tweeted: "To anyone worried that Trump is AWOL as America implodes, rest assured: I'm told he's tracking down some very promising Joe Scarborough leads."

Sadly, I don't think she understands that Trumpanzees will understand the sarcasm in her tweet and believe that she's back in the cult. Or..maybe I don't understand that she is back in the cult and her tweet is sincere.

 

[Cain]

By giving him money so he can buy off some people?

I just received an urgent e-mail from Donald Trump (one that went out to only 25 patriots). He was concerned that I had not donated enough, so I sent him my last $17 and 39 cents. Better it goes to Trump than Soros's grubby little hands. Now I'm broke while illegals enjoy food stamps, health-care, section 8 and Obamaphones.

 

[lomiller]

I agree with that.

ETA: Phiwum is not the only person to have interpreted this as saying Chauvin intended to kill Floyd. I did, too.


Now, if SB says that was not his intent, then I accept that. But I agree with Phiwum that the wording suggests that Chauvin knew he could get away with murder which indicates that was his intention.

And, please, I don't need to be jumped on by those who disagree. I've read your posts and simply do not agree with them. I'm not going to rehash this with you.

I never really thought SB was suggesting or even discussing intent, I think he overlooked the implications of what no intent would mean in that context. I think SB was trying to say Chauvin expected to be able to get away with what he was doing and this is probably true. It’s also true that what Chauvin was doing turned out to be murder. Without intent, you can’t link those and say Chauvin expected to get away with murder.


IMO a toned down version of the argument works perfectly well, that is to say Chauvin expected to be able to get away with assault, even if he was caught on video doing it. This does say something about his attitude and possibly the attitude of other law enforcement, and that’s why I think it’s still relevant to the thread.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Please avoid the temptation to special plead your way out of every example presented by me and others. If you do so you risk getting swamped with examples.

I've generally enjoyed your posts which I find thoughtful and informative. I read this post with interest and an open mind until I got to that last paragraph. What a disappointment. This is an attempt to stop any response by calling whatever I may say "special pleading". This is, in effect, you saying "I've had my say, but I'm dismissing anything you have to say before you even say it." Ok. I won't bother.

Well, that was certainly a miscalculation on my part.

Likewise, I enjoy your posts and your contributions to this and many other threads.

I had in mind the following:

​

Originally Posted by Stacyhs
Can you give me an example where looting and rioting instituted real change?

Hmmm, I'll have to keep the list short, but lets see.

Dutch revolution (156
Something that happened in the Americas starting 1765
French revolution (1789-)
I seem to recall something in Russia 1917 onwards
etc etc

Now I'm not saying all those changes were for the better, but they all happened when a large group of people felt oppressed by their own government over a longer time combined with a usually quite authoritarian leader who totally ignored them in favor of taxing people to fund a rich group of cronies.

I'm not familiar with the Dutch revolution so I'll not comment on that.

As for the others, they're not equivalent to what is happening in the US now. Those were politically, not racially, motivated and affected far more of the population.

I was concerned you'd simply respond to the examples I gave in much the same light: "they're not equivalent," "they were political," and "affected a different scope of the population." Unfortunately it came across as a preemptive attempt to shut down the conversation, which I assure you wasn't my intent. It was at best clumsy wording and at worst a thoughtless and unnecessary addendum to my post.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I never really thought SB was suggesting or even discussing intent, I think he overlooked the implications of what no intent would mean in that context. I think SB was trying to say Chauvin expected to be able to get away with what he was doing and this is probably true. It’s also true that what Chauvin was doing turned out to be murder. Without intent, you can’t link those and say Chauvin expected to get away with murder.


IMO a toned down version of the argument works perfectly well, that is to say Chauvin expected to be able to get away with assault, even if he was caught on video doing it. This does say something about his attitude and possibly the attitude of other law enforcement, and that’s why I think it’s still relevant to the thread.

If, indeed, Chauvin did perform an unauthorized choke hold and/or used excessive force then he was in the midst of an assault. As such any death that results is Felony Murder. "The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime, however unintended."

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, that was certainly a miscalculation on my part.

Likewise, I enjoy your posts and your contributions to this and many other threads.

I had in mind the following:

​

I was concerned you'd simply respond to the examples I gave in much the same light: "they're not equivalent," "they were political," and "affected a different scope of the population." Unfortunately it came across as a preemptive attempt to shut down the conversation, which I assure you wasn't my intent. It was at best clumsy wording and at worst a thoughtless and unnecessary addendum to my post.

Thank you. But please notice that I can admit when I've been wrong as per the following:

Originally Posted by Juniversal View Post
Wait, how isn't this politically motivated? Do the police not represent the judicial branch? Protesters are essentially advocating for reform and against misconduct and corruption. Is that not a political motivation? Misconduct and corruption negatively affects everyone but effect blacks disproportionately. There is an overarching motivation for racial reconciliation but the greater cause is a political one (to reduce corruption and misconduct).

I see your point and acknowledge it. I just had to look at it from a broader perspective.

 

[Cabbage]

I'd think it plausible that Chauvin considered the possibility that Floyd would die somewhere in that time. I doubt that he desired Floyd's death, which is what is required for the claim that he murdered Floyd because (in part) he could get away with it.

No, that's not a requirement. He could have simply not cared whether Floyd died or not, and perhaps he simply did not care because he thought he could get away with it.

 

[a_unique_person]

No one is disputing that the cop literally murdered Floyd, as far as the evidence shows.



Do you think that the cop wanted Floyd to be dead in the end? Surely not. We may say the he didn't care enough not to kill Floyd, that in fact he did something likely to kill Floyd and knew or should have known that death was a likely outcome. And this is horrendous. But it is different than doing it for the sake of Floyd's death.



(Not sure if the action made it probable the Floyd would die. Maybe so. Maybe the cop has behaved just as badly as this many times without killing anyone, just like a drunk who drives without incident up until he kills someone.)

IMHO the cop routinely did this and enjoyed making people feel like they were dying. This time he took it too far, maybe like the sadist who needs a bigger thrill each time and tips over into murder.

There are videos of cops doing exactly the same move on protesters during these riots. In one video the partner of the cop pinning down a protester moves the knee off the neck and onto the back once the cuffs are on. Much safer but not as dominating and pain inducing for the cop.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump tweeted

I will be delivering brief remarks from the Rose Garden at 6:30 P.M. Eastern to update on the Federal Response.

 

[Dr.Sid]

IMHO the cop routinely did this and enjoyed making people feel like they were dying. This time he took it too far, maybe like the sadist who needs a bigger thrill each time and tips over into murder.

There are videos of cops doing exactly the same move on protesters during these riots. In one video the partner of the cop pinning down a protester moves the knee off the neck and onto the back once the cuffs are on. Much safer but not as dominating and pain inducing for the cop.

The technical aspect might be important. Is there recommended way of holding person on the ground ? Are there forbidden ways ? AFAIK here in Czech Republic it's responsibility of the cop himself, but he knows he'll be in trouble if there is serious injury, or death. And anything around neck begs trouble. I've been doing aikido for years and I was on seminars with cops and held by cops, and while I'm not sure if something like this is really 'forbidden' around here, I was thought several times to stay away from neck in this situation (and most others). I was also told that it's basically impossible to keep big angry man on the ground no matter what, so perfectly safe way might simply not exist. Still the cop must be held responsible.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump tweeted

I will be delivering brief remarks from the Rose Garden at 6:30 P.M. Eastern to update on the Federal Response.

 

[Ladewig]

Trump Tweets
Sleep Joe Biden’s people are so Radical Left that they are working to get the Anarchists out of jail, and probably more. Joe doesn’t know anything about it, he is clueless, but they will be the real power, not Joe. They will be calling the shots! Big tax increases for all, Plus!

This was definitely all Trump. The lies, personal attacks and ending with a totally unrelated topic out of left field is evidence of that.

ETA:

Also, note his disgust at the idea of donating money to help people get out on bail. He is not expressing anger at judges who set bail for certain crimes. As for what he is angry about, it will take better minds than mine to determine if the part that upsets him the most is certain people getting out on bail or certain people donating their own hard-earned money to help poor people.

 

[Ladewig]

The technical aspect might be important. Is there recommended way of holding person on the ground ? Are there forbidden ways ? AFAIK here in Czech Republic it's responsibility of the cop himself, but he knows he'll be in trouble if there is serious injury, or death. And anything around neck begs trouble. I've been doing aikido for years and I was on seminars with cops and held by cops, and while I'm not sure if something like this is really 'forbidden' around here, I was thought several times to stay away from neck in this situation (and most others). I was also told that it's basically impossible to keep big angry man on the ground no matter what, so perfectly safe way might simply not exist. Still the cop must be held responsible.

Impossible?
For four cops to safely keep a handcuffed man on the ground?

I’m skeptical.

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump is sending the military in to quell the protests. According to CNN, a peaceful protest in Lafayette Park was disrupted by troops and mounted police. It will be interesting to see if other peaceful protests are going to be broken up by these troops. I think Trump may be pouring oil of the fire here. I have feeling there is going to be even more violence.

 

[SezMe]

Trump Tweets

The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization.

No, we won't. Trump can shout that all he wants but it won't become official.

 

[Andy_Ross]

President Trump invoking an 1807 Insurrection Act to mobilize the military and "quickly solve the problem."

I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them. I am also taking swift and decisive action to protect our great capitol, Washington, DC. What happened in this city last night was a total disgrace. Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I want the organizers of this terror to be on notice that you will face severe criminal penalties and lengthy sentences in jail.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump said mayors and governors must establish an "overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled." If the city or state refuses to take the actions, Trump said he would deploy the US military.

Trump said he is also taking "swift and decisive action" to protect the nation's capital including dispatching "thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property."

He also said the 7 p.m. ET curfew in the city will be "strictly enforced."

 

[AnonyMoose]

I think Trump just signalled the gun-toting right wingers to take to the streets and start shooting protesters?

To paraphrase part of his rose garden speech today:

"... using all federal resources, civilian and military...(blah blah).... and to protect the rights of law abiding citizens, including your second amendment rights..."

Why else would he even make mention of the 2nd amendment in this situation? Also when he said "second amendment rights", he added emphasis into his voice to draw attention to those particular words in the same way he adds emphasis when he says "Chy-nah".

Did your president just incite civilian bloodshed by way of people exercising their 2A rights to put a stop to the protests?

Anyone else catch this 2A mention and found it an odd/eerie thing to say?

 

[Stacyhs]

The reason the Lafayette Park peaceful protesters was moved out by police using tear gas and rubber bullets was because Trump wanted to walk to the church that was partially burned last night. In other words, he broke up a peaceful protest in order to get his photo op.

 

[TheSupermeerkat]

Trump is sending the military in to quell the protests. According to CNN, a peaceful protest in Lafayette Park was disrupted by troops and mounted police. It will be interesting to see if other peaceful protests are going to be broken up by these troops. I think Trump may be pouring oil of the fire here. I have feeling there is going to be even more violence.

If Trump wanted to do anything tough, like declare himself dictator for life, round up his enemies nows the time. Is that at all likely, or are the anti-Trumpers on the twitters getting all worked up?