President Trump 2.0

[Anonymouse]

Now he wants Republicans to "nationalise" elections.

In other words, steal them.

"I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the President of the United States."

Uh, no. That is in fact exactly what the Constitution is all about: to prevent the President from gaining total power. While it has its faults, the Constitution is the most sensible government document written in centuries. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

What he really wants is to rig the midterms. But it is, quite simply, contrary to the Constitution for the Federal government to take over elections, no matter the pretext. So is his serving a 3rd term, which despite what he's claimed is obviously his goal.

Assassination is looking more and more America's only hope. Again, Heinlein saw this coming - Trump is, or is trying to be, the 2026 version of Nehemiah Scudder.

(And up yours, Echelon! I can say these things because this is the United Kingdom, not Russia, China or Russia mark 2 a.k.a. the USA!

I NOTE IN PASSING THAT I DO NOT INTEND TO DISAPPEAR FROM PUBLIC VIEW AT ANY TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SO IF I DO, WE'LL ALL KNOW WHY, WON'T WE?)

[jem]

"The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.”

But did they? The US Founding Fathers were all white, middle class and, mostly, slave owners - and wanted to ensure that their successors would be the same. Hence the oddball ‘electoral college’ system - the membership of which was vague.

How about a general plebiscite? Everyone votes for whoever they wanted as President? Everyone’s vote is equal? But no, they actually didn't trust the people would vote the 'right way’ and came up with a setup to persevere the status quo.

Over the last two centuries the system has evolved to be ‘better’, more representative, but there are still issues. Al Gore won more votes that George Bush in 2000, but Bush, because of the way the system works, became President. And that’s fine, all legal and correct. But was it ‘right’?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by thenry

He had a gun on him that day and nothing happened

Carrying it gangsta style. Were any of the officers aware at the time? If they had, at the very least, they would've pointed their guns at him, as would any armed US law enforcement.
The gun is only revealed after his jacket has come off, after getting away from them, so we can't be sure.
Still shows his violent, aggressive, and totally deranged nature.

---------- Post added at 21:36 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

Now he wants Republicans to "nationalise" elections.

In other words, steal them.

"I have the right to do anything I want to do. I'm the President of the United States."

Uh, no. That is in fact exactly what the Constitution is all about: to prevent the President from gaining total power. While it has its faults, the Constitution is the most sensible government document written in centuries. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

What he really wants is to rig the midterms. But it is, quite simply, contrary to the Constitution for the Federal government to take over elections, no matter the pretext. So is his serving a 3rd term, which despite what he's claimed is obviously his goal.

Assassination is looking more and more America's only hope. Again, Heinlein saw this coming - Trump is, or is trying to be, the 2026 version of Nehemiah Scudder.

(And up yours, Echelon! I can say these things because this is the United Kingdom, not Russia, China or Russia mark 2 a.k.a. the USA!

I NOTE IN PASSING THAT I DO NOT INTEND TO DISAPPEAR FROM PUBLIC VIEW AT ANY TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SO IF I DO, WE'LL ALL KNOW WHY, WON'T WE?)

The Democrats are quick to routinely complain about individual US State control of elections.
So Gore, Hillary, and Kamala didn't complain about the voting?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Carrying it gangsta style. Were any of the officers aware at the time? If they had, at the very least, they would've pointed their guns at him, as would any armed US law enforcement.
The gun is only revealed after his jacket has come off, after getting away from them, so we can't be sure.
Still shows his violent, aggressive, and totally deranged nature.
[

Take it you are referring to the ICE agent here?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Take it you are referring to the ICE agent here?

Really? So Pretti wasn't all those things and more?
Did ICE actually behave any different than any other law enforcement officers would've? Even in the UK, police would've confronted somebody acting like that.

[jem]

“Carrying it gangsta style.”

Sorry but that the actual f**k does that mean?

---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Really? So Pretti wasn't all those things and more?
Did ICE actually behave any different than any other law enforcement officers would've? Even in the UK, police would've confronted somebody acting like that.

Oh for God’s sake. He was on the ground, his (legally owned and had a right to carry) had been taken from him, his ability to harm anyone was zero. But yet he was shot many times, in the back.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jem

“Carrying it gangsta style.”

Sorry but that the actual f**k does that mean?

---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------



Oh for God’s sake. He was on the ground, his (legally owned and had a right to carry) had been taken from him, his ability to harm anyone was zero. But yet he was shot many times, in the back.

Wasn't completely on the ground. He was half-kneeling when shot. He was still struggling and moving around. Hadn't been taken from him at the time. The video shows the agent going for his gun at the around SAME time as another agent reached. Trained automatic response would've kicked in. It was a "less lethal scenario"(still involving shooting the person), NOT a "non-lethal" one, where the person has completely surrendered.
Gangsta style is where they put it in their waistband, hidden but ready to use. Known as "Mexican Carry".

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Wasn't completely on the ground. He was half-kneeling when shot. He was still struggling and moving around. Hadn't been taken from him at the time. The video shows the agent going for his gun at the around SAME time as another agent reached. Trained automatic response would've kicked in. It was a "less lethal scenario"(still involving shooting the person), NOT a "non-lethal" one, where the person has completely surrendered.
Gangsta style is where they put it in their waistband, hidden but ready to use. Known as "Mexican Carry".

He wasn't 'ready to use it' though. Also the agent took the gun away before the first shot was fired and then a further 9 shots. There was no danger of harm from Pretti at all.

He was legally carrying it as per the local rules. Pretty did nothing wrong. His only action was to try and help that woman up and instead was pepper spray, pinned to the ground and hit in the head with the pepper spray cannister, before being executed. How you can try to defend ICEs actions is beyond me.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Did ICE actually behave any different than any other law enforcement officers would've? Even in the UK, police would've confronted somebody acting like that.

Do UK immigration enforcement shoot and kill UK citizens? I don't think so!

Originally Posted by jem

Oh for God’s sake. He was on the ground, his (legally owned and had a right to carry) had been taken from him, his ability to harm anyone was zero. But yet he was shot many times, in the back.

Dont waste your time, the member in question has demonstrated a number of times that hes all in favour of US officers shooting their countrymen dead, and will argue blindly with anyone who disagrees it was fully justified, whatever the actual evidence.

---------- Post added at 00:16 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do UK immigration enforcement shoot and kill UK citizens? I don't think so!

They are not routinely armed (but they can be).

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Stephen

He wasn't 'ready to use it' though. Also the agent took the gun away before the first shot was fired and then a further 9 shots. There was no danger of harm from Pretti at all.

He was legally carrying it as per the local rules. Pretty did nothing wrong. His only action was to try and help that woman up and instead was pepper spray, pinned to the ground and hit in the head with the pepper spray cannister, before being executed. How you can try to defend ICEs actions is beyond me.

It wasn't carried in a bag or something. It is an established term for the mode of carrying a gun. Variations include Small of Back carry(seems more applicable in this case), Appendix carry.
Link

No, that is not particularly safe. It is, however, a good place to conceal a handgun. When one considers human physiology, there is a “low" spot in the middle of the back, just above the buttocks. Most jackets are tailored to hang straight from the shoulder area, thus making a space between the jacket and the small of the back which just happens to be ideally sized to conceal a handgun. As a bonus, the weapon in this position is easily reached if the situation requires that.

Because of the real world and reaction times, you have to step BACK in time. The start of events occurs BEFORE the time of the first shot. Takes over a quarter of a second just for the reaction starting from seeing something. Then there is the time it takes to reach for the gun, remove from holster, raise arm, pull trigger. All a trained response.

Difficult to see exactly, but that would make the reaction to shoot and fire occurring BEFORE the other agent went for Pretti's gun.
Link

On the other hand, if the person moves in any fashion that implies intent to harm or resist, most officers would fire their weapons until the offender is no longer moving to resist.

Bear in mind the officer was very close at the time, so options were limited.


He DID NOT go to help the woman before being pepper sprayed. He approached the agent, was pepper sprayed, spun around and was pepper sprayed again. All in the video.
Wasn't pinned to the ground. At the point of the first shot, he was half-kneeling. Again, all in the video.
Link

What we know:
Claire Louise Feng, 27, of St. Paul, is charged with assaulting a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
Emily Duchateau Baierl, 37, was also charged with assault.
According to charges, around 9:25 a.m., Feng allegedly tackled a border patrol agent who was attempting to arrest another woman. At that point, a second agent attempted to pull Feng away, and took her to the ground – at which point she "forcibly bit the right ring finger of [the second agent]." The injury left the agent with a tip of his finger bitten off, charges allege.
.

He was aggressive, combative, resisting, and carrying a gun. In that situation, who knows what somebody's intentions were.
A TRAINED RESPONSE from law enforcement, known as "see gun, shoot gun".

---------- Post added at 10:09 ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Do UK immigration enforcement shoot and kill UK citizens? I don't think so!

We're talking about US enforcement officers.
Armed UK police officers have shot and killed people, when somebody has made a suspicious movement and they are thought to be carrying a gun. Even when it turns out just to have been a chair leg.

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by jem

"The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.”

But did they? The US Founding Fathers were all white, middle class and, mostly, slave owners - and wanted to ensure that their successors would be the same. Hence the oddball ‘electoral college’ system - the membership of which was vague.

How about a general plebiscite? Everyone votes for whoever they wanted as President? Everyone’s vote is equal? But no, they actually didn't trust the people would vote the 'right way’ and came up with a setup to persevere the status quo.

Over the last two centuries the system has evolved to be ‘better’, more representative, but there are still issues. Al Gore won more votes that George Bush in 2000, but Bush, because of the way the system works, became President. And that’s fine, all legal and correct. But was it ‘right’?

All fair points. Oops. I meant they knew what they were doing in terms of limiting the President's power, putting checks and balances in place. Not enough, perhaps, but at least they tried.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Paul

Dont waste your time, the member in question has demonstrated a number of times that hes all in favour of US officers shooting their countrymen dead, and will argue blindly with anyone who disagrees it was fully justified, whatever the actual evidence.

---------- Post added at 00:16 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------

They are not routinely armed (but they can be).

ANYTHING BUT BLINDLY. After careful watching of videos, trying to research procedures and training principles, etc.
It's about understanding the situation at the time and why it happened.
The people that are BLINDLY agreeing with something are making silly claims implying that ICE officers are wildly going around looking for somebody to shoot. Along with so many other ridiculous claims, many of which are physically impossible and defy the laws of Physics and motion.
It is FACT, that he was NOT completely restrained(eg half-kneeling when shot), was combative, resisting, and moving around, whilst carrying a gun.
A lot of US law enforcement would've reacted the same way.

The “textbook answer” is that officers fire until they’ve terminated a threat, according to Seth Stoughton, an associate professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law who studies policing.


Officers use deadly force on a suspect they perceive to be an imminent threat of death or bodily harm to the officers or others. In training, police are told to use force until that person no longer presents a threat, Stoughton said.
...
If officers are using deadly force, they’re usually trained to not pause their fire and to shoot in quick succession – taking a break to assess the suspect they’re shooting at could give that suspect time to harm them or others, he said.

If in both cases they had simply "surrendered" and complied and not tried to resist, nothing would've happened. THEIR CHOICE. It was the result of THEIR actions.

[Stephen]

You can try to justify the murder all you want, but your perceived order of events and what actually happened are completely different. The thugs clearly wanted to harm him and more. Pepper sprayed and then beaten with said pepper spray can, while having 3-4 more thugs on him, he was in no position to hurt or harm anyone, any movement was likely a response to the physical violence committed on him. You can clearly see in the videos that the gun was removed by an agent before the first shot.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Stephen

You can try to justify the murder all you want, but your perceived order of events and what actually happened are completely different. The thugs clearly wanted to harm him and more. Pepper sprayed and then beaten with said pepper spray can, while having 3-4 more thugs on him, he was in no position to hurt or harm anyone, any movement was likely a response to the physical violence committed on him. You can clearly see in the videos that the gun was removed by an agent before the first shot.

Only only agent was near at the time, faced with 3 aggressive protestors. Other agents arrived later, especially the shooter. The shooter didn't take part in any pepper spraying, restraining or anything. He was just moving around, until the gun was discovered. His actions were completely non-aggressive before that point.
Hitting with can might have been a distraction technique,designed to distract someone from possibly going for a weapon. Same thing with breaking a car window from outside, when a person is inside. Standard procedure, even in the UK.
The agent was being confronted in the middle of the road. If somebody did that to you, wouldn't you consider that aggressive?
A proper response to being attempting to be restrained by law enforcement, is to stay still and be restrained and lie on the ground. NOT try to get up. In so, so many cases, it is the resisting that causes deaths.