Anyone sponsoring protest groups that get violent at inaugural should be arrested too

[Doc1]

Try and get into my house, we will test the law....in the breakees case posthumously.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'll tell you something even more simple than that: listen to the orders of the police and you won't get hurt. Not that hard really.

I don't think King was hearing anything from the footage I saw. He was too busy getting the shit batoned out of him. As for Watts, police brutality was what lead to the riots in the first place.

 

[Dr Grump]

.

The thing is every single situation between a white officer and a black suspect that didn't turn out good have one thing in common: they refused to obey the orders of the police officer(s).

And yet I have seen several of those incidents and not in one single case was the officer's life in danger. Were the suspects being dicks? Yep, but being a dick doesn't mean a death sentence.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So ... if sponsors of protests should be held liable for the actions of individuals...then...should gun manufacturers be held responsible for the actions of individuals?

Same sort of argument.

I say no. To both.

They should if the manufacturers plan, organize and incite riots.

 

[Coyote]

So ... if sponsors of protests should be held liable for the actions of individuals...then...should gun manufacturers be held responsible for the actions of individuals?

Same sort of argument.

I say no. To both.

They should if the manufacturers plan, organize and incite riots.

If you are sponsoring a RIOT - that is one thing and against the law.
If sponsoring a protest - a peaceful protest - then are you still responsible?
Are the sponsors of ball games responsible if the fans riot?
Are gun manufacturers responsible if their guns are used criminally?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And yet I have seen several of those incidents and not in one single case was the officer's life in danger. Were the suspects being dicks? Yep, but being a dick doesn't mean a death sentence.

Actually, yes it does.

I'm a CCW holder here in my state. I am not under any restrictions to use deadly force only if deadly force is used against me. Our laws state that I can use deadly force if I believe that I (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm.

So why should police have more restrictions than I (as an armed citizen) have? They should not and our laws should protect them if they feel the need to use deadly force to escape serious bodily harm.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'll tell you something even more simple than that: listen to the orders of the police and you won't get hurt. Not that hard really.

I don't think King was hearing anything from the footage I saw. He was too busy getting the shit batoned out of him. As for Watts, police brutality was what lead to the riots in the first place.

King led police on a high speed chase (refusing to obey the orders of police) and then resisted arrest. In fact, that footage you seen was used in the defense of the officers.

When police officers are trying to subdue you, there is nothing to hear that changes that. You know to surrender to police when they are trying to restrain you. It's not rocket science.

 

[Coyote]

And yet I have seen several of those incidents and not in one single case was the officer's life in danger. Were the suspects being dicks? Yep, but being a dick doesn't mean a death sentence.

Actually, yes it does.

I'm a CCW holder here in my state. I am not under any restrictions to use deadly force only if deadly force is used against me. Our laws state that I can use deadly force if I believe that I (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm.

So why should police have more restrictions than I (as an armed citizen) have? They should not and our laws should protect them if they feel the need to use deadly force to escape serious bodily harm.

I think they AND CCW holders walk a very fine line there as to what constitutes a threat.

I think the downside of this is having a gun can empower someone to use it rather than de-escalate a situation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And yet I have seen several of those incidents and not in one single case was the officer's life in danger. Were the suspects being dicks? Yep, but being a dick doesn't mean a death sentence.

Actually, yes it does.

I'm a CCW holder here in my state. I am not under any restrictions to use deadly force only if deadly force is used against me. Our laws state that I can use deadly force if I believe that I (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm.

So why should police have more restrictions than I (as an armed citizen) have? They should not and our laws should protect them if they feel the need to use deadly force to escape serious bodily harm.

I think they AND CCW holders walk a very fine line there as to what constitutes a threat.

I think the downside of this is having a gun can empower someone to use it rather than de-escalate a situation.

Then let's take a rape situation. The woman is not under a threat of death. She is only being forced to have sex with a man. Should she have the right to use deadly force?

I think that rape can be defined as serious bodily harm; at the very least, serious mental harm.

I also believe that in many cases, the idea of an armed citizen does de-escalate a situation, and I have several stories of such incidents if you care to read them.

There is no truth of armed citizens waiting for an opportunity to use deadly force. When I strap on my gun to go somewhere, I pray I don't have to use it. I think most decent people do the same.

 

[HenryBHough]

The "shoot to kill" order will be issued to the police only after President Trump puts down the Bible. Until then? Have fun, girlz 'n bois!

 

[jon_berzerk]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unless you can prove a conspiracy to breach the peace by the sponsors, go fish.

people peaceably to assemble,

rioting and violence is not peaceful assemble

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Guilt by association? Not a solid legal concept, honestly. But such people should be convicted in the court of public opinion.

There are plenty of charges. Conspiracy, association before the fact, association after the fact. Abetting a felony, aiding a felon, misprision.

There is plenty of accomplice liability to go around.

Sure, if that's provable. Veritas was provable, and nothing happens to them.

 

[Dr Grump]

Actually, yes it does.

I'm a CCW holder here in my state. I am not under any restrictions to use deadly force only if deadly force is used against me. Our laws state that I can use deadly force if I believe that I (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm.

So why should police have more restrictions than I (as an armed citizen) have? They should not and our laws should protect them if they feel the need to use deadly force to escape serious bodily harm.

Full disclosure here. I have mentioned this many times on my early years on here but it has been a while. I used to be an LEO in New Zealand. We are unarmed generally. However those of us who were armed, according to police GIs (general instructions) were only allowed to shoot people under the following four instances:
1) Where your lfe (the police officers) was in immediate danger
2) (Strangely) where the crims life was in immediate danger (putting a gun to their own head trying to top themselves)
3) Where a member of the public's life is in immediate danger
4) Where their escape is likely to cause death to another (a mass murderer running away for example).

I concur with your belief that a police constable/officer has a right to protect themselves. However, I reiterate, in all the videos I have seen - including Kings - the perps did not meet ANY of those situations above. I have also been - many times - in those situations. The most I ever thought of doing was pepper spraying, but I never did that either.

 

[keepitreal]

It's about time that these sponsors start to pay their dues when the protests and protestors get violent and cause human injury and property damage. I've been listening to clips of the Project Veritas on Hannity. Unreal.

For example if BLM gets violent, arrest Kellogg executives. Arrest any and all sponsors of any violent protest group. Skip boycotts. Throw the exectives in the slammer along with the perps on the ground.
And charge them with terrorism. Long overdue.

Yeah, ok...still waiting for Soros to be held accountable

 

[tinydancer]

It's about time that these sponsors start to pay their dues when the protests and protestors get violent and cause human injury and property damage. I've been listening to clips of the Project Veritas on Hannity. Unreal.

For example if BLM gets violent, arrest Kellogg executives. Arrest any and all sponsors of any violent protest group. Skip boycotts. Throw the exectives in the slammer along with the perps on the ground.
And charge them with terrorism. Long overdue.

Yeah, ok...still waiting for Soros to be held accountable

Hungary is about to go after Soros and his NGO's big time.

It's one thing to sponsor movements. It's entirely a whole new ball game when those movements plan violence against fellow citizens, businesses and government institutions.

 

[Dr Grump]

King led police on a high speed chase (refusing to obey the orders of police) and then resisted arrest. In fact, that footage you seen was used in the defense of the officers.

When police officers are trying to subdue you, there is nothing to hear that changes that. You know to surrender to police when they are trying to restrain you. It's not rocket science.

I didn't see him fighting anyone. There were at least half a dozen officers there. Easily enough to subdue him.

 

[Dr Grump]

There is no truth of armed citizens waiting for an opportunity to use deadly force..

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, and he found it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no truth of armed citizens waiting for an opportunity to use deadly force..

Zimmerman went looking for trouble, and he found it.

No, all Zimmerman did was try to keep an eye on the suspect until the police got there. He did the right thing, he called police immediately to report a suspicious character. Granted he probably should have just like Martin run away, but he was trying to help police by following him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

King led police on a high speed chase (refusing to obey the orders of police) and then resisted arrest. In fact, that footage you seen was used in the defense of the officers.

When police officers are trying to subdue you, there is nothing to hear that changes that. You know to surrender to police when they are trying to restrain you. It's not rocket science.

I didn't see him fighting anyone. There were at least half a dozen officers there. Easily enough to subdue him.

Then a jury seen something that you didn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, yes it does.

I'm a CCW holder here in my state. I am not under any restrictions to use deadly force only if deadly force is used against me. Our laws state that I can use deadly force if I believe that I (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm.

So why should police have more restrictions than I (as an armed citizen) have? They should not and our laws should protect them if they feel the need to use deadly force to escape serious bodily harm.

Full disclosure here. I have mentioned this many times on my early years on here but it has been a while. I used to be an LEO in New Zealand. We are unarmed generally. However those of us who were armed, according to police GIs (general instructions) were only allowed to shoot people under the following four instances:
1) Where your lfe (the police officers) was in immediate danger
2) (Strangely) where the crims life was in immediate danger (putting a gun to their own head trying to top themselves)
3) Where a member of the public's life is in immediate danger
4) Where their escape is likely to cause death to another (a mass murderer running away for example).

I concur with your belief that a police constable/officer has a right to protect themselves. However, I reiterate, in all the videos I have seen - including Kings - the perps did not meet ANY of those situations above. I have also been - many times - in those situations. The most I ever thought of doing was pepper spraying, but I never did that either.

Pepper spray and tasers don't always work--especially with angry subjects intoxicated on drugs. If your life is in danger, you don't want to use something that may not work. Besides the possibility of ineffectiveness, you risk missing your target or a barb not getting stuck in the subject because of heavy clothing or a sheer miss.

Those tools are great to bring down somebody that's not a serious threat to you, but if I were a police officer, I would never depend on them if my life were on the line. Bullets work.