Jump to content

Because Trump 2.0


Mr King
 Share

Recommended Posts

I understand that a large number of personnel in the US armed forces are people of colour.

 

Whilst those personnel may not hesitate to use force against civil insurgents who are using violence against the government, they may be more reluctant to use force against more peaceful, or let us say, resistant to authority without overt violence, than against those who use violence.

 

I hope that the US military is not split on racial lines in these difficult times.

In any randomly selected group of black soldiers/sailors/Marines/airmen, you are going to have some percentage spouting the usual left-wing rhetoric. Probably a smaller percentage than in the civilian population.

 

The bottom line, though, is that if you have a squad of NG soldiers facing a riot, they're going to take care of each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Jeff

    1533

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2392

  • DKTanker

    1574

  • rmgill

    1705

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

If all of this sounds a bit of an irrelevance, the book has informed a Generation of the Neoright, in the US and abroad. I gather it was one of Timothy McVeighs favourite books. So no, you cant avoid the conclusion that the Black Lives Matter protests are the idea kind of thing hat they would attempt to subvert to provoke confrontations.

How long have you been a member of the neoright?

 

Look, dont take my word for it. Listen to a few podcasts on the subject. It doesnt take that much effort to get informed on it you know.

https://play.acast.com/s/warcollege/818b277d-0f16-4a76-b11d-78d83273f0cf

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well I look at it like this. Take away the badge and the uniform. Lets put these two individuals in a pub, and all the other circumstances apply. What then do you have, in front of multiple witnesses? Murder. There is simply no other way you can class someone kneeling on someones neck for minutes after they stop breathing. I

 

Ill grant you satisfying a jury of it is another thing. OTOH, looking at what is reported to be his record, if that is in any way representative of who he is as an officer, its surprising it didnt happen years ago.

 

This is the huge problem with American case law. The principle of qualified immunity actually holds LEOs to a lower standard than the rest of us.

 

Yes. It not just an American problem, we have had the same issues here of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roman, you are not going to turn this into a 'UK has no law like us Russians do' thread, you have done that in far too many other threads, its boring. The point remains, take away the Uniform and the badge, what do you have? Murder. They charged him with murder because he used improper arrest techniques, applied them for too long, then was tardy about calling for an ambulance, despite many witnesses calling for him and his buddies to do so.

Have I said “no law”? Definitely it is law (legal system) both in UK and Russia (and also USA) but legal system everywhere is nothing more than bunch of people with own prejudice, interests and connections – and people could be wrong, willing or unwilling, for many reasons, including political pressure. Law (written text) is also far from perfect – so what we have is combination of imperfect text and imperfect people (ub)using it. Russian proverb is “Закон что дышло – куда повернул, туда и вышло» (“Law is like carriage pole – it goes where it is directed to”). Above mentioned case is clearly political and it is hardly any reason to expect independent ruling. You trust your system and US one? Good for you, but seems like those people rioting now on the streets of US cities (and UK cities, as we see) are not sharing your trust.

 

 

 

There comes a point when you have to stop making excuses and call it as you see it. He killed the guy for no reason in front of witnesses, thats murder even in Russia.

There were multiple legal cases of drunk fistfights here in Russia where one person resulted dead - but his opponent not accused automatically of intentional murder. And the case of arrest of suspect is hardly "killed the guy for no reason".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So explain Charlottesville to me? I would also respectfully suggest you read up on a group called 'Atomwaffen' before you airily dismiss White Supremacy as just a snow job by leftie Journalists.

$100 that Stuart's impression of what happened at Charlottesville is hopelessly filtered by what was reported via the British Media from far away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-threatens-to-deploy-army-as-teargas-fired-so-he-can-pose-at-church/ar-BB14TIfX

 

Donald Trump has threatened to deploy the US military to quell civil unrest – even as teargas was fired against nearby peaceful protesters to grant him a photo opportunity.

 

 

The National Park Service, responsible for security in that area, says NO tear gas was fired, it was smoke after the "peaceful protesters" started throwing objects at the park police, and they had no idea the president would be walking through the area. Their actions were in support of the 7pm curfew.

 

That MSNBC piece reads like an Antifa press release.

 

 

Hey look, they found those tear gas canisters that the goverment claimed weren't used.

 

H1HtBKz.jpg​

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 2 and 3. Pat answers. How well does that work in reality?

It's supposed to be that way. But if you look at actual cases and incidents, you easily find that the local police and prosecutors in urban areas are not very good at keeping the violent criminals off the street. I've cited this before, I'll cite it again. There was a homicide in Philly a few years ago of a cop. The perpetrator had a rap sheet that was something like 13 pages, the other two accomplices with their rap sheets added up to 21 page. The primary actor had so many assaults and gun possessions it was a wonder that he was on the streets, but he was. And many of those cases were what are termed nolo-prosequi. As a matter of routine many laws are not enforced and criminals go free without much if any punishment.

 

So if you're going to have laws that are supposed to keep violent felons off the streets but really only just try to restrict the arms, what precisely is the criminal justice system doing?

 

 

You have 4 policemen who kill a black man in public because they can get away with it. There are scores of incidents of this kind.

41 last year.

 

10 black men unarmed.

20 white men unarmed.

 

IS that in keeping with your impression of the scale of the problem?

 

Now full credit to Minnesota they have FINALLY charged them all, and their reluctance was presumably because they recognise how broken the system is they cant assure prosecutions.

You're presuming facts you can't know. You can't know their state of mind. The prosecution of Justine Damond's killer, Mohommed Noor took 9 moths. George Floyd was killed 10 days ago.

 

I've seen this characterization before by people that I suspect don't really hve much of a picture on any csae.

 

If the argument that the system works really needs to go and listen to Generation Y or any other podcast on true crime, because self evidently it isnt. There are millions of people protesting out there because they finally have reached a tipping point."

I think it's because, they've been sold a bill of good that's fitting a certain narrative and they're not aware of the larger picture.

 

You want to use the Guard on violent mobs, fine, Ive zero issues with that. Thats precisely what you trained them for.

I donm't think you realize that the Guard isn't necessarily trained for fighting mobs. The guard ARE regular combat troops. They've been in Iraq. The 108th Cavalry IS a regular combat unit. They used to ride Bradleys and M1s. Now they ride Armored HMMWVs as motorized cavalry vs armored cavalry before.

 

 

Military police as you are very well aware are a different matter. I dont know how they handle it in the US, but in the UK they ONLY police the inside of the Fence.

Stuart. THE MP's are NATIONAL GUARD. I don't think you remotely understand what the National Guard is in the US.

 

 

I really cannot get my head around someone who is so fully of moral certitude about the rights of the individual, but is also bullish about using the regular military on rioters and sees no contradiction in those positions.

Breakdown of law and order and backing up the police. That's what they're doing.

 

 

Jesus Christ Ryan, put your brain in gear and think of the numerous occasions this has been done and the deaths that occur from it. Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968. Bogside Northern Ireland 1972, Tianamen 1989. You really want to see Atlanta, or New York or half a dozen other cities end up on that illustrious list?

I don't think you understand the nature of how this has happened before, let alone what the guard is doing or carrying.

 

A Primer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807#Invocations_of_the_act

 

 

You simply cannot hold a position that the Individual has a right to bear arms and the right of the individual is sacrosanct and must be defended from a Government abusing its powers, and then be ok using Regular troops on those same people, whatever the apparent justification. I know an artist is someone reputedly holding 2 contradictory positions at the same time, but that really is Picasso territory, it really is.

In this instance of suppression of riots, the cops and the guard and regular army are pretty much all doing the same thing. Standing in lines, with armor, shields, batons, some backing them up with tear gas grenade launchers.

 

I went down and walked around their assembly and motor pool area yesterday because that's where I park. How are you able to tell me what they were and were not doing and prepared for? Stuart, this is your moment to ask more questions and opine less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this whole debate about using regular active troops in the US unrests at this point is pretty much obsolete. The military leadership has pushed back very hard against that yesterday, and we're probably not going to see a Tiananmen crackdown under Trump's watch.

Yeah, Trump was going to order Tanks to bulldoze the protestors and grind them into paste. RIGHT.

 

WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he intend that the victim was to die? Or to cause a serious injury that would possibly lead to death? In Commonwealth / British Empire common law jurisdictions they would be the questions to be answered.

 

If his actions were not according to law but lead to death, then manslaughter comes into play (in Commonwealth Common Law).

 

Of course, the officer may try to plead self defence (good luck with that!).

 

But it is important to remember that Commonwealth (dare I say the Empire) precedents in Common Law do not necessarily apply to break away jurisdictions that left the common sense of Common Law nearly 250 years ago.

 

R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens is a British Common Law case where previous US common law was disregarded.

 

So, British, and Common Law precedents do not apply, so why would we ask our very distant, VERY DISTANT, rebellious cousins, tenth or more removed, to accept what we consider to be the basic decency of British Common Law?

 

If the constabulary knelt on someone's neck in the United States of America (after rejecting Common Law) why should we who consider John Bull as a significant figure argue against their policies?

 

Every impression of US law for homicides in fact does comport with English common law as you reference above.

 

I'm not sure how an unusual case like R v Dudley and Stephens, involving the murder of a 3rd person in a coma and who was then eaten as food is precisely the best example a point of dividing accidental homicide vs deliberate homicide. The cannibalism and isolated nature make it a bit of an outlier I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I look at it like this. Take away the badge and the uniform. Lets put these two individuals in a pub, and all the other circumstances apply. What then do you have, in front of multiple witnesses? Murder. There is simply no other way you can class someone kneeling on someones neck for minutes after they stop breathing. I

 

Ill grant you satisfying a jury of it is another thing. OTOH, looking at what is reported to be his record, if that is in any way representative of who he is as an officer, its surprising it didnt happen years ago.

 

No, it would depend on mens rea again.

 

Generally speaking we have 3 classes:

Deliberate and intentional murder a forethought - a planned crime that intended the use of threat of deadly force can I think fall into this as well

 

Murder that occurs in the heat of the moment - unplanned but committed in the heat of the moment with actions you knew at the time could result in death and did.

 

negligent homicide - actions that you did not intend to cause the death of another but did through your gross negligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at what Murph said about competence of the North Eastern PDs and their use of force techniques. It's not the first time I have seen officers I know and hold in high regard observe issues with regards to major urban center police training and competence levels.

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think this whole debate about using regular active troops in the US unrests at this point is pretty much obsolete. The military leadership has pushed back very hard against that yesterday, and we're probably not going to see a Tiananmen crackdown under Trump's watch.

Yeah, Trump was going to order Tanks to bulldoze the protestors and grind them into paste. RIGHT.

 

WTF?

 

Quick, quick, fetch the fainting couch, rmgill is shocked!

 

Maybe you should spare some of that outrage for Senator Cotton, who was advocating something that is considered a war crime since 1907.

 

TMrkKUF.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two views are mutually incompatible. There are some here who reserve the right to use the military to put down a population that is protesting or rioting, and at the same time endorse those peoples right to protest and riot by giving them free access to firearms. That is completely contradictory positions. You cant give the right of all citizens to be armed and then say 'well only the non leftie ones I dont disagree with'.

 

Nobody has advocated using the military to stop protesters. Protesting is a "right of the people peaceably to assemble." Rioting is neither a right nor is it peaceful. You can peacefully protest with firearms as happened in Lansing. Rioting with, or without firearms, is not allowed and if the local authorities can't deal with the problem it is the responsibility of the states and the federal government to do so.

Edited by Tim Sielbeck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart, It's not lost on those who defend the right to bear arms that radicals and criminals can also get them. We know it's possible and will happen, and we defend the right anyway.

 

Nobody said freedom didn't have it's risks, it's tradeoffs and it's potential downsides, but it's worth it as a hedge against state level tyranny, whose body count historically dwarfs those of angry, sensitive, crazy dark souls intent on doing harm to zer-self or others en masse. Especially considering those are often a product of our own society (the media, educational institutions, and so on) and aside from a baseline generally do not have to exist.

 

States tend to ratchet up authority and drift towards tyranny over centuries. The Stanford experiments have shown too that once you give people authority, it's all too easy to abuse it, and the right to bear arms is a hedge against that. It's a litmus test. You can go to almost any other country on the planet if you prefer to believe that self-defense is not a human right, but there are very very few bastions left where the state ostensibly acknowledges that it is, that the individual is soverign, and that their power is derived by the consent of the governed. It's not perfect as with anything, but I'd much rather err towards the side of the individual. To paraphrase Massad, the armed citizen in US society possesses the power to legally end the life of another, under their own summary command and judgement, if certain circumstances exist. Not even the highest levels of Government ostensibly have that power. As it should be. With that power comes responsibility.

 

You seem to be focused on "how do you create a perfect crimeless society through legislation" which necessarily means since you can't know who the bad guys are and good guys are, it's the responsibility of the Government as referee to even the playing field and keep everything playing nice. My point is that such a society will never exist, and while best practices can make a difference, I won't advocate going past the point of diminishing returns -- which is when you deny an individual the ability to take responsibility for their own well-being in the time it takes public safety to arrive to help.

 

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So explain Charlottesville to me? I would also respectfully suggest you read up on a group called 'Atomwaffen' before you airily dismiss White Supremacy as just a snow job by leftie Journalists.

Just how many of the protesters in attendance do you think were white supremacists? Just because somebody is proud of their heritage, it doesn't follow that they are a racial bigot or white supremacist. I'm not at all suggesting that there were no skin head in attendance, but they were far outnumbered by southerners simply proud of being southerners.

 

Are you proud to associate yourself as British with that of Admiral Lord Nelson? Does that make you a white supremacist? After all Nelson fought on the seas in part to perpetuate the British subjugation and slavery of people around the world. Germans that are proud to associate themselves with being German along side of Irwin Rommel, Hans Guderian, and Gunther Rall, are they thus anti-Semitic Aryans of the Master Race?

 

"Atomwaffen?" Thank you for making my point. You never heard of this obscure group until I challenged you and you went looking for an example. Until then neither you, nor I, nor anybody else that reads this forum had ever heard of them.

 

From the left leaning Wiki:

 

During an investigation, ProPublica obtained 250,000 encrypted chat logs written by members of the group.[25] ProPublica, in early 2018, estimated that Atomwaffen had 80 members,[26] while the Anti-Defamation League estimated that it had 24 to 36 active members. According to International Centre for Counter-Terrorism the group has a large number of “initiates” in addition to 60 to 80 full members

 

If Wiki is to be believed, and why not, there are no more than 80 members of that group across the entire United States. Again, thanks for making my point.

 

I dont know. Not many probably. Some of them? Undoubtedly. There was a documentary on PBS or smithsonian on atomwaffen, and they described a charming document called 'The Turner Diaries', about a campaign to rid America of the Blacks and the Jews. Its worth reading the synopsis, it describes race riots where Whites are murdered, and which degenerate into a riot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries

 

If all of this sounds a bit of an irrelevance, the book has informed a Generation of the Neoright, in the US and abroad. I gather it was one of Timothy McVeighs favourite books. So no, you cant avoid the conclusion that the Black Lives Matter protests are the idea kind of thing hat they would attempt to subvert to provoke confrontations.

 

Only 80 registered to Atomwaffen. From this article from 2017, its reckoned there are 917 active neonazi groups in the US. If we assume 80 is a kind of typical number, you would be looking at over 70 thousand nationwide. And thats just the ones would register with a group.

https://www.nationalmemo.com/just-many-neo-nazis-u-s-anyway

 

 

"Data from the Southern Poverty Law Center"

 

FFS. *facepalm*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two views are mutually incompatible. There are some here who reserve the right to use the military to put down a population that is protesting or rioting, and at the same time endorse those peoples right to protest and riot by giving them free access to firearms. That is completely contradictory positions. You cant give the right of all citizens to be armed and then say 'well only the non leftie ones I dont disagree with'.

 

Nobody has advocated using the military to stop protesters. Protesting is a "right of the people peaceably to assemble." Rioting is neither a right nor is it peaceful. You can peacefully protest with firearms as happened in Lansing. Rioting with, or without firearms, is not allowed and if the local authorities can't deal with the problem it is the responsibility of the states and the federal government to do so.

 

Exactly, they had 10k+ armed citizens at a rally with zero violence, zero destruction and they didn't even have any litter to clean up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968. Bogside Northern Ireland 1972, Tianamen 1989. You really want to see Atlanta, or New York or half a dozen other cities end up on that illustrious list?

 

Los Angeles 1965 could be added to that list, as I recall seeing documentary footage of the National Guard in action there.

 

I think the no quarter for those who support black rights thing will end up ensuring Cotton will rise no higher in public life than his regional constituency will take him.

 

Donald, for his part, is navigating the Floyd riots as one would expect from a man who experienced the 77 Blackout riots first hand. He will probably emerge, as he often does, unscathed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

States tend to ratchet up authority and drift towards tyranny over centuries. The Stanford experiments have shown too that once you give people authority, it's all too easy to abuse it, and the right to bear arms is a hedge against that.

 

Not sure if you are aware of this

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication

The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. We just learned it was a fraud.

The most famous psychological studies are often wrong, fraudulent, or outdated. Textbooks need to catch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Berlin 1953, Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968. Bogside Northern Ireland 1972, Tianamen 1989. You really want to see Atlanta, or New York or half a dozen other cities end up on that illustrious list?

 

Los Angeles 1965 could be added to that list, as I recall seeing documentary footage of the National Guard in action there.

 

I think the no quarter for those who support black rights thing will end up ensuring Cotton will rise no higher in public life than his regional constituency will take him.

 

Donald, for his part, is navigating the Floyd riots as one would expect from a man who experienced the 77 Blackout riots first hand. He will probably emerge, as he often does, unscathed.

Only those people who think burning black owned homes and businesses in black neighbourhoods is somehow supporting black rights will take that interpretation of Cotton's remarks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If all of this sounds a bit of an irrelevance, the book has informed a Generation of the Neoright, in the US and abroad. I gather it was one of Timothy McVeighs favourite books. So no, you cant avoid the conclusion that the Black Lives Matter protests are the idea kind of thing hat they would attempt to subvert to provoke confrontations.

How long have you been a member of the neoright?

 

Look, dont take my word for it. Listen to a few podcasts on the subject. It doesnt take that much effort to get informed on it you know.

https://play.acast.com/s/warcollege/818b277d-0f16-4a76-b11d-78d83273f0cf

 

 

What folks on the wrong side of the pond consider informed re American issues is almost invariably moronic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...