Trump signs safe policing executive order

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Wookiep

“A riot is the language of the unheard.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

Not all protests are riots, but all riots are protests.

And sometimes, people are just idiots..I fondly remember our 2 hockey riots it wasn't anything to do with right or wrong.

a reply to: Annee

No ma'am.

And nothing I've said here suggests that I have suggested that.

This is not zero worth effort on the part of the President. It is, in fact, an unprecedented move.

Of course legislation needs to be enacted, and if that doesn't happen, then Trump can blast their asses.

Also, think about the political position this puts him in ... now he can field every claim from Biden about police and throw it back at him with a "three strikes rule" twist on it.

It's a brilliant move.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HalWesten
Which branch of the military was called out to attack innocent protesters with chemical weapons? The Army? Navy? Air Force? Marines?

The Space Force and the Puddle Pirates.

BOOTS On The MOON!

In my opinion this police issue is 20% cop related and 80% people need to learn to just take direction. Are cops gonna have their power trips...yep, are cops going to overreach?...Yep! Bottom line in most instances related to police violence the people are the one's chesting up and things escalate from there. In the past 3 weeks I have seen more mobs attack cops then ever before! Then the little babies cry when a cop reacts to said action! Ferking snowflake mentality!

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I don't feel that it's a glorious thing, but it's a damn sight better than calling out the damned military.

So we’re supposed to now applaud him because after he called out the damn military against American citizens he’s encouraging the police to not be as violent? And throwing funds towards de-escalation? How much money is he giving those programs? What programs is he giving it to? Is there any talk of that in the executive order or is it as vague as every executive order he signs to supposedly make America better?

I was born at night, but not last night.

Of course, it's a political move. But it is fundamentally different than anything he or the Republcians have done before.

That’s not saying much.

Which branch of the military was called out to attack innocent protesters with chemical weapons? The Army? Navy? Air Force? Marines? Did they use Sarin? Anthrax? Maybe mustard gas or VX?

You know he did nothing of the sort yet you keep repeating it. Why? Oh, before you say National Guard, he does have the constitutional right to do so in times of emergencies like this when the local or state cannot or will not handle it or if they ask for it.

You’re either lying or intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Trump called for active duty military to be used against American citizens. That isn’t debatable.

Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper distanced himself from President Trump on Wednesday, saying the use of active-duty forces to quash unrest across the nation is unnecessary at this stage, hours before his predecessor, Jim Mattis, excoriated the president for working to divide the country.

The comments captured the extraordinary tension that has been building among current and former Pentagon officials since Monday, when Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to use active-duty troops in U.S. cities and Esper referred to American cities as a “battlespace.”

Later that day, the Pentagon began moving forces to the Washington area in preparation for possible operations in the nation’s capital, and authorities used force to clear largely peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square so Trump could walk to a damaged church and pose for photographs with a Bible.

Pentagon chief balks at Trump’s call for active-duty military force on U.S. citizens, and Mattis rips president

Just because the Pentagon refused and Generals tore into him like the tin pot dictator he’s trying to be doesn’t make it ok or like it didn’t happen.

But hey, he signed a vague executive order saying police are “encouraged” to do better and that funds are going towards some nebulous programs that no one can name. So let’s applaud him for making everything better.

Yeah ok.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Annee

No ma'am.

And nothing I've said here suggests that I have suggested that.

This is not zero worth effort on the part of the President. It is, in fact, an unprecedented move.

Of course legislation needs to be enacted, and if that doesn't happen, then Trump can blast their asses.

Also, think about the political position this puts him in ... now he can field every claim from Biden about police and throw it back at him with a "three strikes rule" twist on it.

It's a brilliant move.

For me, he's damaged goods. Beyond redemption.

Again, congrats to the speech writer.

Just to be clear - - I use what I call "elevator thinking". Say, you have a 10 floor building. Each floor is a different perception. I really do try to be open to all sides of something - - all perspectives. But, Trump reminds me of George Wallace - - in how he will be remembered in history.

We are an Oligarchy (money/power rules), and elected leaders are pretty much just figureheads. It's hard to still believe in the process, but its what we have.

I hope some good comes out of it.

a reply to: underwerks
You are really going to get that tar baby aren't you?

Be careful those stickers look sharp.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I just refuse to applaud the government when it talks about reforming itself. I’d think most people would see that for what it is.

Especially after everything that’s been done and what the President has tried to do. It should be obvious what his real intentions are.

a reply to: Annee

It's better than nothing at least; I think it will have a positive effect net.

It's the first time that a Republican President has acknowledged (at least in my memory) that there are issues with law enforccement in this country.

And it's a brilliant move politically.

a reply to: underwerks
Gee
I assumed his intentions were re election?
Are they not?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Sorry.

I took you for one of the people here applauding the President for this transparent attempt at helping people.

I agree, there’s nothing more to this than him playing politics. And probably funneling the money earmarked for these programs into the pockets of some of his lackeys.

My bad.

a reply to: underwerks

Have you read the EO?

Just curious.

originally posted by: okrian
Good lord, what a garbled mess of a speaker Trump is. He really needs to stick to the teleprompters (as painful as that is to watch as he moves through it at a snails pace) so we can actually get some facts as opposed to constantly repeating a embarrassing barrage of waste-of-space used car salesman adjectives over and over again. The world is only dumber for having watched that.

But better off wouldn't you say...

Anyone who wants to read the EO....

Trump Executive Order

a reply to: Gryphon66
It's the first time that a Republican President has acknowledged (at least in my memory) that there are issues with law enforccement in this country.

And it's a brilliant move politically.

Don't say that too loudly.
Or highlight the fact that those departments wanting additional federal funding have an avenue to obtain such.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: underwerks

Have you read the EO?

Just curious.

The part that hits home for me in particular is the treatment of the mentally ill, homeless and those with addictions. There NEEDS to be more attention to these issues which are serious, and less brutality brought in.

I think tho EO is a step in the RIGHT direction, and I just cant see how anyone could criticize it! We need this right now, especially what I said above. It's about getting RID of brutality in these areas, not more authoritarian measures!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: underwerks

Have you read the EO?

Just curious.

Yes. Here it is in its entirety. Let me break down the salient parts.

Link

The part about choke holds:

(ii) the State or local law enforcement agency's use-of-force policies prohibit the use of chokeholds -- a physical maneuver that restricts an individual's ability to breathe for the purposes of incapacitation -- except in those situations where the use of deadly force is allowed by law.

Well, look at that. They can only be used in situations where use of deadly force is allowed by law. That’s worked so well with police shooting people so far. It’s not like the protests are about police wrongly using deadly force or anything like that. So that isn’t really a change in anything. Lip service, like I said.

b) The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall include a mechanism to track, as permissible, terminations or de-certifications of law enforcement officers, criminal convictions of law enforcement officers for on-duty conduct, and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for improper use of force. The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall account for instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or retires while under active investigation related to the use of force. The Attorney General shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the information in the database consists only of instances in which law enforcement officers were afforded fair process.

c) The Attorney General shall regularly and periodically make available to the public aggregated and anonymized data from the database described in subsection (a) of this section, as consistent with applicable law. (d) The Attorney General shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, allocate Department of Justice discretionary grant funding only to those law enforcement agencies that submit the information described in subsection (b) of this section.

While that’s a commendable idea, all it does is talk about creating the database. Nothing about police departments having to refuse applicants with prior violent conduct, nothing about forcing them to. Just that they keep track of it. Well, that’s great. I’m sure everything will be above board with police departments reporting on its own officers.

(c) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall survey community-support models addressing mental health, homelessness, and addiction. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall summarize the results of this survey in a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, which shall include specific recommendations regarding how appropriated funds can be reallocated to support widespread adoption of successful models and recommendations for additional funding, if needed.

Well let’s take a survey. Wake me up when the President decides to do something meaningful with the results of this survey instead of shoving it in a drawer because acknowledging the systemic racial problems in this country won’t play well with his base.

v) programs aimed at developing or improving relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve, including through community outreach and listening sessions, and supporting non profit organizations that focus on improving stressed relationships between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.

PR for police departments. Nothing more. Which is crap. How about the police you know, do better as police. I’m sure this is a great use of my taxes.

The end is the best part:

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c)This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

It’s explicitly saying that nothing in this order in any way will take away from the current authority the police enforce on us.

Police abusing their current authority is the issue here.

That’s what these protests are about. That’s the issue people are having with police. That’s what we want a reduction in. I couldn’t think of a better non-solution than this BS executive order. Yet you all are falling all over yourselves applauding this as some great move.

Please.

a reply to: Gryphon66

All this is, is a BS PR move by the President to make gullible people think he’s changing things for the better while telling police they aren’t losing any authority and don’t really have to change.

Police departments are probably sitting back laughing at this.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Annee

It's better than nothing at least; I think it will have a positive effect net.

It's the first time that a Republican President has acknowledged (at least in my memory) that there are issues with law enforccement in this country.

And it's a brilliant move politically.

I hope you're right.

Trump/Reps are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they had to do something.

This isn't some local scrimmage that they can just brush away - - it went Global.

HAD TO -- is my issue. It doesn't get fanfare.

a reply to: underwerks


sigh that isnt what he meant and even his niece has come out saying to stop using that quote to legitimize riots
spectator.org...

The most obscene example of this was the widespread use, in headlines and ledes, of an out-of-context Martin Luther King quote suggesting that the civil rights leader would have condoned the mayhem. USA Today, for example, ran a feature story bearing the following title: “ ‘A riot is the language of the unheard’: MLK’s powerful quote resonates amid George Floyd protests.” This grotesque misrepresentation of Dr. King’s views is only possible by cynically cherry-picking eight words from a 1966 interview during which he repeatedly emphasized that violence was counterproductive to the progress of the civil rights movement.

but if you would like MLK full thoughts on the matter here they are as this was his opening statement on the full quote ill post below this

KING: I will never change in my basic idea that non-violence is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for freedom and justice. I think for the Negro to turn to violence would be both impractical and immoral.

seems hes pretty clearly saying violence isnt the answer read riots and that it wont help them in the slightest


and for context here is the entire quote

MIKE WALLACE: There’s an increasingly vocal minority who disagree totally with your tactics, Dr. King.

KING: There’s no doubt about that. I will agree that there is a group in the Negro community advocating violence now. I happen to feel that this group represents a numerical minority. Surveys have revealed this. The vast majority of Negroes still feel that the best way to deal with the dilemma that we face in this country is through non-violent resistance, and I don’t think this vocal group will be able to make a real dent in the Negro community in terms of swaying 22 million Negroes to this particular point of view. And I contend that the cry of “black power” is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we’ve got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years

so with his opening statement and the full quote in context hes not justifying rioting and actually saying that to achieve change they have to control the vocal minority of those that wish to use violence vs the majority opinion at the time that non violence was the best way to combat the problems facing the black community,and furthermore in the context of how sadly it is mostly minority owned businesses which will just expand the economic disparity between the black and white communities with the damage done to mostly their own communities , i mean sure some corporations are getting hit but unlike the small community owned businesses the corporations will either come back or in the worst case just up and leave like we are seeing some of already happening in some of the more hard hit areas that suffered from rioting .