Trump and Comey

[TheMastersSon]

Actually I do think it's relevant. The treason law protects the people, while the revolution law specifically protects the same government who passed it.

 

As for country and government being somehow perpetually linked, that's pure horseshit. Our founding fathers fought and died to dispel that myth, and if our entire federal government disappeared tomorrow, very few people beyond those who suck off the public teet would even know it happened.

Edited June 11, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[PoorlyAged]

Actually I do think it's relevant. The treason law protects the people, while the revolution law specifically protects the same government who passed it.

 

As for country and government being somehow perpetually linked, that's pure horseshit. Our founding fathers fought and died to dispel that myth, and if our entire federal government disappeared tomorrow, very few people beyond those who suck off the public teet would even know it happened.

 

Of course it's horseshit. Why should a pesky little thing like a dictionary get in the way of a perfectly good delusion.

[gandalftw]

 

My mistake.

 

However, the Kent State killings do demonstrate the potential for violence by the State against it's own people. Had it never happened, then I might believe that such a thing would not be possible. But it did happen, and given enough time and the right circumstances it will probably happen again, and that was just a peaceful protest.

 

It wasn't your mistake,it was mine for not being specific enough.

 

It does demonstrate the potential for violence by the State against it's own people.A sergeant in the guardsmen was the first to fire into the crowd.For what reason i don't know for it never became clear.There was a rumor that a sniper was firing at the guardsmen but the rumor was never corroborated.Only one guardsmen was injured and it wasn't from a bullet.

 

With Trump in power i'm not so sure it wouldn't/couldn't happen again on a much larger scale.

"I think in terms of leadership, he's getting an A and our president is not doing so well," Trump said of al-Assad during an interview with Fox News in September.

[HeyYou]

 

 

My mistake.

 

However, the Kent State killings do demonstrate the potential for violence by the State against it's own people. Had it never happened, then I might believe that such a thing would not be possible. But it did happen, and given enough time and the right circumstances it will probably happen again, and that was just a peaceful protest.

 

It wasn't your mistake,it was mine for not being specific enough.

 

It does demonstrate the potential for violence by the State against it's own people.A sergeant in the guardsmen was the first to fire into the crowd.For what reason i don't know for it never became clear.There was a rumor that a sniper was firing at the guardsmen but the rumor was never corroborated.Only one guardsmen was injured and it wasn't from a bullet.

 

With Trump in power i'm not so sure it wouldn't/couldn't happen again on a much larger scale.

"I think in terms of leadership, he's getting an A and our president is not doing so well," Trump said of al-Assad during an interview with Fox News in September.

 

Likely some guy with an itchy trigger finger fired accidentally, and everyone else just followed suit....... Look at the cops in New York, one guy with a gun, and four cops fired over 50 rounds at him. (nine of which hit..... I think one bystander was also hit, but, didn't die. A friggin' miracle......)

[gandalftw]

 

 

 

My mistake.

 

However, the Kent State killings do demonstrate the potential for violence by the State against it's own people. Had it never happened, then I might believe that such a thing would not be possible. But it did happen, and given enough time and the right circumstances it will probably happen again, and that was just a peaceful protest.

 

It wasn't your mistake,it was mine for not being specific enough.

 

It does demonstrate the potential for violence by the State against it's own people.A sergeant in the guardsmen was the first to fire into the crowd.For what reason i don't know for it never became clear.There was a rumor that a sniper was firing at the guardsmen but the rumor was never corroborated.Only one guardsmen was injured and it wasn't from a bullet.

 

With Trump in power i'm not so sure it wouldn't/couldn't happen again on a much larger scale.

"I think in terms of leadership, he's getting an A and our president is not doing so well," Trump said of al-Assad during an interview with Fox News in September.

 

Likely some guy with an itchy trigger finger fired accidentally, and everyone else just followed suit....... Look at the cops in New York, one guy with a gun, and four cops fired over 50 rounds at him. (nine of which hit..... I think one bystander was also hit, but, didn't die. A friggin' miracle......)

 

I know,the police today need to be retrained,methods need to be updated,nonlethal weapons could/should be invented to incapacitate a suspect quickly and cleanly.It's not happening,why isn't it happening?Lack of interest?I don't know what the f*#@ is going on but it needs to change.Think Trump is going to pour his military monies that he's accumulating at the expense of the poor and middle class into protecting our police and our citizens from our police?I don't think so.

 

In the Kent State situation the students were unarmed they started out peacefully but were opposed anyway.Anyone with a working brain should have known you don't force an American to give up his/her rights to protest the government for any f*#@ing reason.

[HeyYou]

 

 

 

 

My mistake.

 

However, the Kent State killings do demonstrate the potential for violence by the State against it's own people. Had it never happened, then I might believe that such a thing would not be possible. But it did happen, and given enough time and the right circumstances it will probably happen again, and that was just a peaceful protest.

 

It wasn't your mistake,it was mine for not being specific enough.

 

It does demonstrate the potential for violence by the State against it's own people.A sergeant in the guardsmen was the first to fire into the crowd.For what reason i don't know for it never became clear.There was a rumor that a sniper was firing at the guardsmen but the rumor was never corroborated.Only one guardsmen was injured and it wasn't from a bullet.

 

With Trump in power i'm not so sure it wouldn't/couldn't happen again on a much larger scale.

"I think in terms of leadership, he's getting an A and our president is not doing so well," Trump said of al-Assad during an interview with Fox News in September.

 

Likely some guy with an itchy trigger finger fired accidentally, and everyone else just followed suit....... Look at the cops in New York, one guy with a gun, and four cops fired over 50 rounds at him. (nine of which hit..... I think one bystander was also hit, but, didn't die. A friggin' miracle......)

 

I know,the police today need to be retrained,methods need to be updated,nonlethal weapons could/should be invented to incapacitate a suspect quickly and cleanly.It's not happening,why isn't it happening?Lack of interest?I don't know what the f*** is going on but it needs to change.Think Trump is going to pour his military monies that he's accumulating at the expense of the poor and middle class into protecting our police and our citizens from our police?I don't think so.

 

In the Kent State situation the students were unarmed they started out peacefully but were opposed anyway.Anyone with a working brain should have known you don't force an American to give up his/her rights to protest the government for any f***ing reason.

 

They were protesting on university property, and it wasn't *completely* peaceful. That said..... the use of deadly force was most certainly uncalled for. In all reality, calling out the national guard was an over-reaction.... But, it's easy to second guess those decisions 40 some odd years later....

 

You are right though, cops are not sufficiently trained. Most of them don't see combat every day either... so, when they do, I find it easy to understand them not making the best decisions 100% of the time. But, while cops make headlines fairly regularly when they shoot someone, they are only a drop in the bucket when it comes to gun deaths. It's the 'bad guys' with guns, that ignore all those gun laws the left wants to pass, that are the trouble.

[TheMastersSon]

> They were protesting on university property

 

Kent State. It was and still is state and therefore public property. If it had been a private university the situation would have been entirely different.

 

I'm still amazed that some Americans believe, if push came to shove which imo is inevitable, our military would turn its guns on its own families and friends in order to defend treason to and collapse of our Constitution and moral/economic bankruptcy. Beyond astonishing, but I bet quite a few Russians thought the same about the Soviet army before the USSR's collapse.

Edited June 11, 2017 by TheMastersSon

[HeyYou]

> They were protesting on university property

 

Kent State. It was and still is state and therefore public property. If it had been a private university the situation would have been entirely different.

 

I'm still amazed that some Americans believe, if push came to shove which imo is inevitable, our military would turn its guns on its own families and friends in order to defend treason to and collapse of our Constitution and moral/economic bankruptcy. Beyond astonishing, but I bet quite a few Russians thought the same about the Soviet army before the USSR's collapse.

Keep in mind, that is is unlikely that any troops deployed to a hotspot, will actually HAVE any friends or family there. Any that do, will be quickly reassigned.

 

Also, from THEIR point of view, they will be DEFENDING the constitution against treason. Remember, most of those soldiers are young kids, barely out of highschool, that have been very thoroughly indoctrinated to follow orders, pretty much without question. If ordered to fire into a crowd, they WILL pull the trigger. If someone in the crowd fires first, they won't even need the order, they will defend themselves. I know this to be the case, as I used to BE one of those young kids.

[gandalftw]

 

They were protesting on university property, and it wasn't *completely* peaceful. That said..... the use of deadly force was most certainly uncalled for. In all reality, calling out the national guard was an over-reaction.... But, it's easy to second guess those decisions 40 some odd years later....

 

You are right though, cops are not sufficiently trained. Most of them don't see combat every day either... so, when they do, I find it easy to understand them not making the best decisions 100% of the time. But, while cops make headlines fairly regularly when they shoot someone, they are only a drop in the bucket when it comes to gun deaths. It's the 'bad guys' with guns, that ignore all those gun laws the left wants to pass, that are the trouble.

 

It started out as a peaceful demonstration until the authorities decided to try to stop it.There was no good reason to interfere with these students.The focus should have been on the violent activists that were shipped in from who knows where that set fire to the ROTC building.The guardsmen could have gone after them instead shooting down unarmed fleeing students.

 

Police methods need to change.Not too long ago a child in a playground was shot and killed because he was reported for brandishing a weapon which turned out to be a bb gun.

The police rushed to the scene and drove their squad cars within mere feet of the child and when the child turned they killed him.That,in my opinion,is poor training.

There are numerous cases of police firing on unarmed fleeing suspects,what the hell causes that?They are fleeing for Zeus sake.

[PoorlyAged]

 

 

They were protesting on university property, and it wasn't *completely* peaceful. That said..... the use of deadly force was most certainly uncalled for. In all reality, calling out the national guard was an over-reaction.... But, it's easy to second guess those decisions 40 some odd years later....

 

You are right though, cops are not sufficiently trained. Most of them don't see combat every day either... so, when they do, I find it easy to understand them not making the best decisions 100% of the time. But, while cops make headlines fairly regularly when they shoot someone, they are only a drop in the bucket when it comes to gun deaths. It's the 'bad guys' with guns, that ignore all those gun laws the left wants to pass, that are the trouble.

 

It started out as a peaceful demonstration until the authorities decided to try to stop it.There was no good reason to interfere with these students.The focus should have been on the violent activists that were shipped in from who knows where that set fire to the ROTC building.The guardsmen could have gone after them instead shooting down unarmed fleeing students.

 

Police methods need to change.Not too long ago a child in a playground was shot and killed because he was reported for brandishing a weapon which turned out to be a bb gun.

The police rushed to the scene and drove their squad cars within mere feet of the child and when the child turned they killed him.That,in my opinion,is poor training.

There are numerous cases of police firing on unarmed fleeing suspects,what the hell causes that?They are fleeing for Zeus sake.

 

 

Here is the Code of Federal Regulations governing the use of deadly force. It defines the conditions under which a fleeing suspect may be fired upon.

 

10 CFR 1047.7 - Use of deadly force.

 

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.

 

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

 

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

 

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.