Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Dangerous And Destructive Forces

Chaziel Sunz, former Black Lives Matter Ferguson organizer, offered some observations, albeit in 2017 (hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance):




On June 1, 2020, Tucker Carlson delivered a thought-provoking monologue which, in my view, is mandatory viewing — regardless of how you may feel about Tucker Carlson:

23 comments:

  1. What a shameless bunch, these New York Liberal/Progressives Politicians are. How do they look at themselves in the Mirror every day?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I took much umbrage at Tucker's criticism of Trump'd reaction.
    Almost turned him off in disgust at that point when watching live.
    Then he recognized Trump's reaction that occurred only 30 minutes before broadcast, too late for him to edit his monologue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed,
      Then he recognized Trump's reaction that occurred only 30 minutes before broadcast, too late for him to edit his monologue?

      I'm sure that it was too late for editing.

      In any case, Tucker's monologue was definitely not partisan. Instead, he was on the side of the rule of civil law -- and I'm totally with him there.

      These savages are on the side of barbarism and anarchy. And some of them appear to be amoral and/or having a wild free-for-all. Our societal contract cannot withstand that assault!

      Delete
  3. But you have to remember that Tucker had Antifa on his doorstep while his wife was home alone with their children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed,
      Nothing like something like that that to anger the ones being assaulted!

      Delete
  4. The police of the major cities are not under President Trump's control. They are controlled by the progressive Democrats elected by the people of those cities. I say this not to score political points against Democrats, but to point out that electing Democrats solves nothing.

    Redlining? Crappy schools? Crummy housing? Those are local phenomena.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      Have you ever heard of "qualified immunity"?

      Police act like laws don't apply to them because of 'qualified immunity.' They're right.

      Excerpt:

      OPINION
      Police act like laws don't apply to them because of 'qualified immunity.' They're right.
      There's a legal obstacle that's nearly impossible to overcome when police officers and government officials violate our constitutional and civil rights.
      Patrick Jaicomo and Anya Bidwell
      Opinion contributors

      On May 25, Minneapolis police killed George Floyd. While two officers pinned the handcuffed Floyd on a city street, another fended off would-be intervenors as a fourth knelt on Floyd’s neck until — and well after — he lost consciousness.

      But when Floyd’s family goes to court to hold the officers liable for their actions, a judge in Minnesota may very well dismiss their claims. Not because the officers didn’t do anything wrong, but because there isn’t a case from the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court specifically holding that it is unconstitutional for police to kneel on the neck of a handcuffed man for nearly nine minutes until he loses consciousness and then dies.

      And such a specific case is what Floyd’s family must provide to overcome a legal doctrine called “qualified immunity” that shields police and all other government officials from accountability for their illegal and unconstitutional acts....

      Delete
    2. From one of the links in the above article:

      Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions.

      Although the above relates to civil lawsuits of various officials, I have to wonder if the idea of such immunity doesn't spill over to police officers' actions in the field. In other words, what we used to call "a power trip."

      Delete
    3. Qualified immunity only applies when the officers are acting within the scope of their authority, that is doing what the police department authorizes them to do. They can still be held liable for, for instance, the use of an unauthorized type of force.

      Delete
    4. Jayhawk,
      Maybe so, but please see the examples offered HERE.

      Delete
    5. The article is filled with non sequiturs. It cites that the principle of qualified immunity,

      "requires a victim to identify an earlier decision by the Supreme Court, or a federal appeals court in the same jurisdiction holding that precisely the same conduct under the same circumstances is illegal or unconstitutional.

      It then cites two examples, neither of which is a case in point.

      Example 1: "the victim cited a case where the same court earlier held that it was unconstitutional for officers to sic their dog on a suspect who had surrendered by lying on the ground with his hands to the side. That was not sufficient, the court reasoned, because the victim had not surrendered by lying down: He had surrendered by sitting on the ground and raising his hands."

      That example does not even compare two cases, it simply says that lying down with your arms at your sides does not constitute surrender.

      Example 2: "a Texas prison guard who pepper sprayed an inmate in his locked cell “for no reason” did not violate clearly established law because similar cited cases involved guards who had hit and tased inmates for no reason, rather than pepper spraying them for no reason." That one compares hitting/punching to pepper spraying, two different acts.

      The fact that conviction did not occur does not obviate the fact that charges were brought, which suggests that the superiors believed the actions to be wrong and certainly did not condone them.



      Delete
    6. This is why it is so damned important to screen new entrants, monitor police actions, and throw out the bad apples.

      Delete
    7. Jayhawk,
      That example does not even compare two cases, it simply says that lying down with your arms at your sides does not constitute surrender.

      On a practical level, it seems to me that lying down in such a position should constitute surrender.

      The fact that conviction did not occur does not obviate the fact that charges were brought, which suggests that the superiors believed the actions to be wrong and certainly did not condone them.

      Does the lack of conviction allow the officer(s) to continue being on the police force? I would imagine so.

      Delete
    8. SF,
      Law enforcement departments monitoring their own may well be the problem.

      Another problem, IMO, is "the revolving door." No-bail policies serve as a manifestation of "the revolving door."

      Delete
    9. @AOW
      Kind of missing my point. Yes, I would not argue with you the lying down with arms at your arms at your sides should be considered as surrender, but the fact is that the court said it was not.

      Further, the writer says that conviction requires a prior case involving a like case involving conviction, then cites as example two cases where the prior case did not result in conviction and where the actions were different. Very sloppy writing, and it makes no point at all.

      The lack of conviction in court would probanly not bar officers from continuing to serve, but the fact that their superiors allowed them to be charged almost certainly would. The point I was making is that just because the judge found them not guilty doesn not mean that their superiors condoned their actions.

      Delete
    10. "the fact that their superiors allowed them to be charged almost certainly would [bar officers from continuing to serve]"

      If that's the case, maybe theyshould stop looking at charges as some kind of last resort automatic firing scenario. The People are reasonably demanding transparent accountability, are they not? Maybe lowering the threshold for sending officers to trial would be part of a good response.

      Delete
    11. A big problem playing into all this: the police unions. They cover up police "misdeeds."

      I see the same in education -- on both the school level and the teachers' union level.

      I see the same in the Roman Catholic Church, although the church doesn't have a union per se.

      Delete
    12. It's hard to say which of those three sectors is the most foundational to a functioning society. Cover-ups are not acceptable in any of them. I'd say that it is for the police that it is the most urgent, but it's close.

      Delete
  5. TUcker is SO SO getting on my nerves....I'm tired of I KNOW EVERYTHING AND THE WHOLE GOV'T IS JUST TOOO STUPID. Yes, he makes some good points but that wide-eyed look, his speaking cadence, the very idea that he knows better...
    Interesting that the Sunz video was shut down.......I'm sure it has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with censoring yet another opinion the Left hates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z,
      I know that Tucker isn't easy to like. But I pay attention to what he's saying instead of watching his facial expressions. I can get past his speaking cadences.

      I have re-posted the Sunz video.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, Tucker can get a little snotty. But he tends to make a lot more sense than most of the idiots on the air.

      Delete
  6. Z typed in: Interesting that the Sunz video was shut down.

    I have now posted it again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As the saying goes "higher than giraffe pussy."

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

!--BLOCKING--