Judge limits Detroit police

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

 

[j-mac]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

is BLM the only citizens that deserve protection?

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

is BLM the only citizens that deserve protection?

Not interested in going down your rabbit hole. This has nothing to do with the actions of the judge. She never limited any police actions to protect people. To be more specific though, you being offended is not a protected action.

 

[j-mac]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

is BLM the only citizens that deserve protection?

Not interested in going down your rabbit hole. This has nothing to do with the actions of the judge. She never limited any police actions to protect people. To be more specific though, you being offended is not a protected action.

Look, looting, and burning property is not protected. So, when you can answer how police are supposed to respond to that with the restrictions this Obama appointee judge has placed on them, then you can address me...until then your deflections while amusing, are useless.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Democrats are content to let their cities burn. And when Trump tries to stem the violence with National Law Enforcement assistance they say “ don’t interfere”. Interfere with what?

 

[Juicin]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

...."peaceful" protestors

lol

Who do you think decides if the protests are peaceful OP/

I'll give you a hint, they wear blue

 

[Thinker101]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Sure, and you ass-wipes have invested how much time and effort into trying to eliminate guns?

 

[Thinker101]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

There are people who go from birth to death living without doing much of anything in life. That is not the responsibility of the schmuck trying to forge a living having to keep paying more out of his wallet.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

WTF, is there an echo here? Did you cut and paste or you just babble?

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

is BLM the only citizens that deserve protection?

Not interested in going down your rabbit hole. This has nothing to do with the actions of the judge. She never limited any police actions to protect people. To be more specific though, you being offended is not a protected action.

Look, looting, and burning property is not protected. So, when you can answer how police are supposed to respond to that with the restrictions this Obama appointee judge has placed on them, then you can address me...until then your deflections while amusing, are useless.

Maybe tell us what you thing about the Tigers while you are at it.

 

[danielpalos]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Sure, and you ass-wipes have invested how much time and effort into trying to eliminate guns?

Right wing gun lovers are worse by creating the problems to begin with.

 

[danielpalos]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

There are people who go from birth to death living without doing much of anything in life. That is not the responsibility of the schmuck trying to forge a living having to keep paying more out of his wallet.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

WTF, is there an echo here? Did you cut and paste or you just babble?

Don't recognize the law? How typical of right wingers.

 

[j-mac]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

is BLM the only citizens that deserve protection?

Not interested in going down your rabbit hole. This has nothing to do with the actions of the judge. She never limited any police actions to protect people. To be more specific though, you being offended is not a protected action.

Look, looting, and burning property is not protected. So, when you can answer how police are supposed to respond to that with the restrictions this Obama appointee judge has placed on them, then you can address me...until then your deflections while amusing, are useless.

Maybe tell us what you thing about the Tigers while you are at it.

Grew up rooting for them, always to have my heart broken...But, I see yet again, you’re deflecting.

 

[j-mac]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Sure, and you ass-wipes have invested how much time and effort into trying to eliminate guns?

Right wing gun lovers are worse by creating the problems to begin with.

oh, this ought to be good...tell us victim boy, how’d the big bad right wingers make you loot, burn, and murder?

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

is BLM the only citizens that deserve protection?

Not interested in going down your rabbit hole. This has nothing to do with the actions of the judge. She never limited any police actions to protect people. To be more specific though, you being offended is not a protected action.

Look, looting, and burning property is not protected. So, when you can answer how police are supposed to respond to that with the restrictions this Obama appointee judge has placed on them, then you can address me...until then your deflections while amusing, are useless.

Maybe tell us what you thing about the Tigers while you are at it.

Grew up rooting for them, always to have my heart broken...But, I see yet again, you’re deflecting.

I replied in kind.

 

[j-mac]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

is BLM the only citizens that deserve protection?

Not interested in going down your rabbit hole. This has nothing to do with the actions of the judge. She never limited any police actions to protect people. To be more specific though, you being offended is not a protected action.

Look, looting, and burning property is not protected. So, when you can answer how police are supposed to respond to that with the restrictions this Obama appointee judge has placed on them, then you can address me...until then your deflections while amusing, are useless.

Maybe tell us what you thing about the Tigers while you are at it.

Grew up rooting for them, always to have my heart broken...But, I see yet again, you’re deflecting.

I replied in kind.

No, I asked a question, that you refuse to address...You trolled, nothing more.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

is BLM the only citizens that deserve protection?

Not interested in going down your rabbit hole. This has nothing to do with the actions of the judge. She never limited any police actions to protect people. To be more specific though, you being offended is not a protected action.

Look, looting, and burning property is not protected. So, when you can answer how police are supposed to respond to that with the restrictions this Obama appointee judge has placed on them, then you can address me...until then your deflections while amusing, are useless.

Maybe tell us what you thing about the Tigers while you are at it.

Grew up rooting for them, always to have my heart broken...But, I see yet again, you’re deflecting.

I replied in kind.

No, I asked a question, that you refuse to address...You trolled, nothing more.

No one has any obligations to address anything that have been simply made up and have already been addressed.

 

[j-mac]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?

Yes, she said it can't be used to disperse crowds. Being in a crowd is not illegal. They need to act as per the U.S. Constitution instructs.

is BLM the only citizens that deserve protection?

Not interested in going down your rabbit hole. This has nothing to do with the actions of the judge. She never limited any police actions to protect people. To be more specific though, you being offended is not a protected action.

Look, looting, and burning property is not protected. So, when you can answer how police are supposed to respond to that with the restrictions this Obama appointee judge has placed on them, then you can address me...until then your deflections while amusing, are useless.

Maybe tell us what you thing about the Tigers while you are at it.

Grew up rooting for them, always to have my heart broken...But, I see yet again, you’re deflecting.

I replied in kind.

No, I asked a question, that you refuse to address...You trolled, nothing more.

No one has any obligations to address anything that have been simply made up and have already been addressed.

oh, so it’s already been addressed? Point me to it...But you’re right, you don’t have any obligation to address anything, proving that 1 you can’t, and 2 you’re only in here to troll...If you won’t answer the simple question, then piss off shitbag.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

Did Trump use those on peaceful protesters? Has trumped ever used anything other than rhetoric, against anyone?

Is this a serious question?

Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op

So you're going to keep pushing that proven lie? That's a perfect example of why you have no credibility.

.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

That's not a judges job, they are supposed to only deal with the facts before them.

.

My post there was a crack at Trump. Little more. She acted upon the evidence provided to her in court. It's in the article.