Republicans Are the Party That Supports Law Enforcement

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

In the act of attempting to break through the door leading to the House Chamber, as an Insurrectionist. You didn't get upset when Trayvon Martin and that ''Gentle Giant'' near St. Louis were shot and killed.

Why would he get upset? What color were they? What political party did Babbitt belong to? That's all you need to know. Unarmed rioters are saints and should be allowed to break in wherever they want--IF they show true homage to Der Fuhrer. But even peaceful BLM marchers deserve every bullet and cannister of tear gas that they get.

Now watch the hypocrites fall over themselves explaining why killing a rioter is far worse than killing a Black man who has his arms raised and is shouting "I'm unarmed, don't shoot me!" as he is sitting on the ground comforting a victim. Yep, the cops DID shoot him. But Goog Ol' Boys will creatively say he deserved it, but Babbitt didn't.

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

The Capital Riots were planned and executed by Democrats and Pelosi is being investigated for her involvement.

Really? I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link to supporting evidence?

[Strokey_McDingDong]

You just made up a bunch of stuff, Old-T.

[winn dixie]

huh ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by royamcr

It is more complicated than you can understand. This source is right in the center on the bias scale.


You made it "more complicated" by arguing points never made. The issue was and is, are there elected Democrat officials be they Mayor or City Commissioners or members of Congress who do not support the police, not how much of the police budget was cut not how much crime is rising. Those are different but important arguments for sure. There are basically two ways one can show support for police. The money you take away from police, is only one of those ways. Language one uses to describe police is the other way one can show whether they support police or use language that degrades police and actually blame the police for the rise in crime.



Statements like "police are hunting and killing Black males" is not supporting police. "We have to "re-imagine policing" is not supporting police. Calling law enforcement "storm troopers", terrorists, Nazi's, is not supporting police and Democrats have used all 3 of those descriptions and more to describe police.


If a city was "defunded", it generally means funds were shifted to other departments. It also doesn't mean their budgets were cut in half or totally shut down.


You are countering an argument never made. Support is not restricted to budgets cut in half or total. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the budget. It has to do with how one speaks about police and whether you support the very difficult job they do or whether one chooses to call them "storm troopers and terrorists.



It "generally" means less support for police.They are saying that police can not be trusted, so what we ask them to do must be restricted. In Chicago, if you can believe it, police have been told to NOT chase a criminal if they flee the scene. Bills to take away "limited immunity", is not supporting police. As a matter of fact, nothing will decimate a police force more than taking away their limited immunity. Without that, every single arrest can become a civil suit against a police officer and that officer could be personally sued losing everything his or her family owns. This is not a get out of jail free card as it is sometimes described by Democrats and the media. All police officers can be held accountable for their actions through disciplinary actions and criminal prosecutions but not personally strip them of their possessions to meet the demands of a civil suit. This must be left up to police departments to shoulder this burden, not police officers because nobody in their right mind would become a cop if they could be personally sued on every arrest they make and be forced to defend themselves in court for every arrest. It's nonsense but what we have come to expect from Democrats.



Usually it is a 5% funding shift. This funding doesn't make overnight changes, it takes at least a couple years for the the programs to ramp up.



Good grief man! "Usually 5%? Where do you come up with this crap? It's about how you speak about your police. Do you "support" the job they do or do you call them killers? Do you chant "what do we want, dead cops, when do we want it, now or how about "pigs in a blanket, fry'em like beacon" and Democrats rarely condemn that kind of language for fear of alienating their base who literally hate police and call for not just cutting funds but "abolishing police".


Crime is going to happen no matter what. Police aren't on every corner watching things. Police respond to situations when needed.


I'm glad you brought up that point. "Police RESPOND" to high crime area's and those high crime areas are almost always communities of color. That's why police arrest a disproportionate number of Black and Brown persons because they are the ones committing most of the crime. I have written often that the reason the powers that be in Chicago and other urban areas, will do nothing about crime, is because it would mean arresting and jailing more Black and Brown criminals and they just aren't going to do that, so they let crime flourish.


It can easily be proven with statistics, that although crime as you say, will happen no matter what, it can be reduced proportionate to the police presence. More police, less crime, less police, more crime. You don't have to have a Ph.D in policing to understand that fact. If you did have a cop on every corner, would there be crime on that corner? There would not.


Occasionally police are right there, but that isn't the norm.


Again, you are making an argument about an issue having nothing to do with "supporting" police and the job they do. You are talking, in fact, about what happens when you defund police. They can't be "right there" and the fewer police you have, the fewer places that can be adequately defended.


It is idiotic to say "a woman got her head cut off" that was because of defunding....


I would agree and I never made that argument. If you are going to debate ME, please only refer to statements I make and I'll do the same to you.


Anyone could walk down a street with big knife and cut someones head off and there isn't a fucking thing police can do about it except respond, report and investigate. Then hopefully find and arrest the perp.

And there in lies the problem quite often as we are seeing all to often in Democrat run cities where the DA was backed by George Soros who think that police are the problem not criminals and that is exactly what I'm talking about. You are not "supporting" police with "no cash bail" returning criminals to the street hours after having been arrested only to repeat their crime. Here is a "general idiom" for you. You will find and arrest fewer perps with fewer police. Again, no Ph.D needed to understand that.


And once you do find them and arrest them, you have to have a DA and judges that will back the police by actually taking these criminals off the streets and keep them in jail.


Please, find me a single elected Republican that has called for defunding the police. Has called police terrorists and Nazi's. I can give you a list as long as your arm of elected Democrats who have used that kind of language including the Mayor's of Seattle and Portland, AOC, Pressley, Corey Bush, Omar, Taliab etc.

[Oilrig]

What a disgrace watching a bunch of cry babies. Sit around all day sipping starbucks while the DC cops are at the murder scene of a kid Pelosi gave them all medals Baily got one for marksmanship

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Oilrig

What a disgrace watching a bunch of cry babies. Sit around all day sipping starbucks while the DC cops are at the murder scene of a kid Pelosi gave them all medals Baily got one for marksmanship

That might be an interesting story if I knew what fuck you were talking about.

[rexdutchman]

Or was it the Blintons effect , because they knew to much ,