Militia in the streets

[rightleft22]

Are their any laws about allowing "Militia" in the streets

Who here is in favor of condoning such a thing as Militia on the streets?
Does it depend if they are a white or black militia
What should the minimum age of participants in a militia be?
What kind of training should they have?
How do you hold the Militia accountable?
Does it matter if Militia come from outer state?

How the crap are Militia considered LAW and ORDER?

[TheDrake]

I don't know about outer state, but I definitely am against militia from outer space, which is how I read it the first time.

[cherrypoptart]

If the police are ordered to pull back, stand down, and let it burn ("give them room to destroy"), what are people supposed to do? If innocent drivers just passing through are getting pulled from their vehicles and beaten nearly to death while the police stick their tails between their legs and run away, are the regular citizens just supposed to curl up into the fetal position and take their beatings? Run away while their businesses get burned to the ground knowing insurance if they even have it may not cover their losses? I mean most of us are Americans here and even those who are not understand America well enough to know that's not the way we're made, that's not how we're built or brought up.

It's kind of like Watchmen's Rorschach in prison.

"None of you seem to understand. I'm not locked in here with you... you're locked in here with me!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTtETj3MtzA

Same thing with the police. It's commonly understood that they are protecting the law abiding citizens from the criminals.

Maybe it's actually the other way around.

We see that in some second world countries too with mob justice. When the police can't or won't do their jobs and the citizens are forced to defend themselves, they will, and the criminals will likely pine for a return to law and order instead of anarchy.

I'm not really for or against it but I recognize reality. People will defend themselves if the police won't. They have no other choice except to let themselves be victims. And that's not the American way.

It does seem a little odd though to insist on cracking down on these so called "militias" while giving rioters free reign to burn, loot, and pillage.

[DonaldD]

What we also see are witches being burned, Tutsis being macheted, blacks being lynched, and the list goes on.

As an aside, driving 30 miles from out of state in order to carry a gun while putting themselves in the middle of a protest in someone else's city can in no way be characterized as "defending themselves".

Wielding a gun to protect somebody else's used car dealership - how does that work, anyway?  What if those evil hoodlums don't stop smashing the cars when you tell them to?  What if they don't stop when you aim your guns at them?  Do you shoot the for rioters not listening to armed, self-appointed militia telling them what to do?

The United States Today

[TheDeamon]

What we also see are witches being burned, Tutsis being macheted, blacks being lynched, and the list goes on.

As an aside, driving 30 miles from out of state in order to carry a gun while putting themselves in the middle of a protest in someone else's city can in no way be characterized as "defending themselves".

So I guess you're going to condemn all the Vancouver, Washington protesters who turned up in Portland?

For Rittenhouse, Kenosha may have been in another state, but it was the closest "city" to where he was, unless he wanted to go to an even bigger one like Chicago or Milwaukee.

He had friends who lived and worked there, he even worked there by some reports. He lives on/near the state line. You can try to make political hay out of it all you want, but it ignored the reality that Kenosha exists next to the state line.

Wielding a gun to protect somebody else's used car dealership - how does that work, anyway?  What if those evil hoodlums don't stop smashing the cars when you tell them to?  What if they don't stop when you aim your guns at them?  Do you shoot the for rioters not listening to armed, self-appointed militia telling them what to do?

"Security theater" is a thing. You don't think the rent-a-cop security guys that are authorized to carry a firearm carry it so they can shoot an intruder, are they vigilantes now as well?

They carry the firearm so that the places they protect look unappealing to the would be criminal, so they'll move on to a softer target. ("Not worth getting shot over")

It should also be noted that he was acting to protect property, the dealership and mechanic's shop. He wasn't armed and roving around the streets at random looking for people to threaten with the gun. From the accounts I've heard, the thing he did to "Escalate the situation" with those peaceful protesters was he used a fire extinguisher to put out a dumpster fire they had started. Clearly the act of a nefarious mastermind. As was his providing first aid services to BLM protesters until a few people decided they wanted to rough up the kid carrying a rifle.

Edit: You ignored the twitter feed I posted a few days ago, but maybe you'll pay more attention to the write up form the NYTimes website itself?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

[TheDeamon]

Also, Antioch, IL is only 20 miles from Kenosha, WI. It also sits directly on the border with Wisconsin. He quite literally lived in Bordertown, IL

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Antioch,+IL+60002/@42.4819791,-88.0983791,14z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x880f869228f02d1d:0xd59f6b64553c3ce3!8m2!3d42.4772418!4d-88.0956396

[DonaldD]

So you're saying he travelled 20 miles in order to protect himself?  That if he hadn't travelled those 20 miles, he would not have been safe?

[TheDeamon]

So you're saying he travelled 20 miles in order to protect himself?  That if he hadn't travelled those 20 miles, he would not have been safe?

He went to render assistance in a neighboring county. Meanwhile Victim #3 traveled from two counties away to be a participant in his chance "to stop an active shooter" before being shot himself.

Further, Antioch is basically adjacent(SW of Kenosha) to Kenosha, so it also was literally a neighboring community for Rittenhouse. But let's keep impugning him for crossing a state line and running into a group of people who evidently wanted a gunfight.

[TheDrake]

Was he at the car dealership he was "defending" when shots got fired? It kind of looks like he was wandering around in a random street. I'm not saying one or the other, because I don't have a google map to find out if he was 20 ft or 2 miles from the spot he was trespassing on.

[DonaldD]

So you're saying he travelled 20 miles in order to protect himself?  That if he hadn't travelled those 20 miles, he would not have been safe?

He went to render assistance in a neighboring county. Meanwhile Victim #3 traveled from two counties away to be a participant in his chance "to stop an active shooter" before being shot himself.

Cherrypoptart, among others, claimed that "people will defend themselves", to which I responded that travelling from out of state is not actually defending oneself. It's putting oneself in danger.

As to carrying a weapon being a deterrent - I can see that argument.  But putting ammunition in the weapon is not actually required for deterrence.  The only reason to put live ammunition into the weapon is for the purposes of transferring those bits of metal into somebody's body. Of course, in a country with more firearm weapons than actual people, bringing a weapon may simply be seen as a provocation and an escalation.  Does anybody really think that fewer people who attend the protests will go armed, now?  And if Rittenhouse had not been carrying a weapon, would his life ever have been in any significant danger?  Honestly?

And as to the relative distance Rittenhouse and his victims travelled: you are missing the point.  I didn't claim that the victims were there to protect themselves, as cherry was arguing was the case for Rittenhouse.

Of course, the whole fires and chaos thing is being exaggerated for political purposes.  Only a single fire engine has been called for the burning of Portland, if you can believe that.

[cherrypoptart]

When we send troops over to Afghanistan to take out al-Qaeda, are we not defending ourselves?

This guy went over there and was apparently putting out fires started by arsonists. I'm not talking about just defending ourselves as in personal self-defense, although he did end up doing that too after someone tried to set him on fire.  But I'm also referring to defending our civilization, the one that many of these so called protestors seem to want to burn down and destroy. The one that the police are supposed to be defending but are abandoning under orders. It makes a lot more sense for people to try to defend themselves by helping their neighbors than it does to wait until the fight comes right to your own doorstep at which point your back is up against the wall and all it takes is one person to throw a Molotov cocktail through your window and then what are you going to do? Too late to do much of anything at that point. Worst case you may end up having to stop, drop, and roll.

It's amazing to me how confused we seem to be about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Bad guys set things on fire. Good guys put fires out. Not complicated.

[DonaldD]

You realize that works both ways right?  Bad people shoot people in the back 7 times: good people protest people who shoot people in the back.  Bad people bring guns to a protest and shoot people in the head.  Good people try to disarm them, sometimes getting shot in the process.  Bad people drive through protests and fire paintballs, marbles and pepper spray into protesters.  Good people stop them from doing so, presumably with other projectile weapons.

When you say "defending our civilization" you are presumably not talking about the civilization of the protesters, but of the people who do not support the protesters.

Simply put, only Americans, it seem, don't understand that bringing firearms to protests is stupid and counterproductive.  They are simply escalations waiting to happen. 

[yossarian22c]

This guy went over there and was apparently putting out fires started by arsonists.
...
It's amazing to me how confused we seem to be about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Bad guys set things on fire. Good guys put fires out. Not complicated.

He put out a dumpster fire, which is good. But put himself in a situation where he was armed with a gun and surrounded by angry people. The killings may well be justified as self defense under the law but "good guys" avoid situations where killing multiple people over a dumpster fire is necessary. Maybe this situation is the opposite of what Trump said in Charlottesville, maybe there weren't "good people" on either side of this disaster.

Good people is in quotes because they could have been good people, but I don't think either side was acting in a good way at the time the shots were fired. Rittenhouse should never have been out on the street alone and armed. He wasn't running to put out a fire at an orphanage, it was literally a dumpster fire just let it burn, putting it out wasn't worth the risk to himself and others there.

[rightleft22]

It does seem a little odd though to insist on cracking down on these so called "militias" while giving rioters free reign to burn, loot, and pillage.

Giving free reign to burn and loot is not acceptable and just another example of a sloppy handling by law reinforcement. A blind eye to militia not being the way to handle things. I image the police "cooperation" or acceptance with a black militia in the same situation opposed to the rioting being quite different.

A law and order President offering up excuses to such militias is setting a precedence which once let out of the bottle could be hard to put back.  It most certainly not a Law and Order position, one in which the slippery slope can only end is Lawlessness and chaos. 

You may want to put your faith in a ungoverned, unaccountable militia protecting you but I believe that's how the rule of 'war lords' starts not law and order.   

It fascinates me that the world the RNC pictures under Biden is the very world they are creating now. The shadow projection is terrifying.

[rightleft22]

It fascinates me that the world the RNC pictures under Biden is the very world they are creating now. The shadow projection is terrifying.

I take that back.

[NobleHunter]

If you can make people afraid of the world you're trying to create and convince them your opponents are the ones responsible, every bit of progress just drives people further on to your side.

[TheDeamon]

You may want to put your faith in a ungoverned, unaccountable militia protecting you but I believe that's how the rule of 'war lords' starts not law and order.

Unaccountable militia warlords? Rittenhouse is setting  precedent which says something quite different at present. And incidentally, at least his shootings are being throughly investigated(and has lots of video evidence to help)... Meanwhile, as a counter example, we have the "CHAZ/CHOP Security" guys who shot up a SUV being driven by a black teen and his brother(IIRC), where the crime scene was sufficiently disturbed it seems Seattle PD has all but given up trying to bring anyone to justice on it.

[TheDrake]

When we send troops over to Afghanistan to take out al-Qaeda, are we not defending ourselves?

This guy went over there and was apparently putting out fires started by arsonists. I'm not talking about just defending ourselves as in personal self-defense, although he did end up doing that too after someone tried to set him on fire.  But I'm also referring to defending our civilization, the one that many of these so called protestors seem to want to burn down and destroy. The one that the police are supposed to be defending but are abandoning under orders. It makes a lot more sense for people to try to defend themselves by helping their neighbors than it does to wait until the fight comes right to your own doorstep at which point your back is up against the wall and all it takes is one person to throw a Molotov cocktail through your window and then what are you going to do? Too late to do much of anything at that point. Worst case you may end up having to stop, drop, and roll.

It's amazing to me how confused we seem to be about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Bad guys set things on fire. Good guys put fires out. Not complicated.

Better we shoot fifteen rioters dead than to let one car burn, eh? It is complicated, unless you think someone walking in the street next to someone who may or may not try to damage property deserves to die.

[wmLambert]

You realize that works both ways right?  Bad people shoot people in the back 7 times: good people protest people who shoot people in the back.  Bad people bring guns to a protest and shoot people in the head.  Good people try to disarm them, sometimes getting shot in the process.  Bad people drive through protests and fire paintballs, marbles and pepper spray into protesters.  Good people stop them from doing so, presumably with other projectile weapons.

No, rationalizing how rioters who burn down buildings and, just as importantly, verbally threaten murder and arson are not the real bad guys is illogical. Once the initial act has occurred, the intent is criminal and ongoing. Police, Feds, National Guard, and vigilantes are all on the side of goodness and light to stop the incipient evil. If the evildoers weren't anticipating being released within an hour of being arrested, and let back out on the street, they might pack up and go home before being arrested. If they weren't paid for their assigned actions to instigate flash mobs via internet, and then urge them on to criminal rioting, it would seem more like protests gone too far. But its not.

Good and bad aren't toys for you to play with. They are immutable concepts that aren't changed by the outcomes created by the bad guys. When I studied Philosophy and Logic as a minor at UM, it was stressed that any purposeful crime is the harbinger of no legal constraints. Anyone who decided the law doesn't pertain to himself has crossed the line. Jaywalking or murder - it doesn't matter. Once the line is crossed, law no longer constrains them - only the necessity to rationalize one's actions by claiming "victimhood." If force is what it takes to stop them, then force is good. As long as law is followed, the force is appropriate. If Rittenhouse was legally allowed to openly carry his weapon, which is open to debate, then his using it in self-defense will win in court.

If the policeman who was trying to prevent what appeared to be a kidnapping shot seven bullets into the man who would not surrender, and fought off two tazers in the process, the good and evil is also evident. As Tyrus said, "Compliance"!

[DonaldD]

No, rationalizing how rioters who burn down buildings and, just as importantly, verbally threaten murder and arson are not the real bad guys is illogical.

Wooosh!

The sound of the point flying right over wmLambert's head.

[msquared]

WmLambert

Anyone who decided the law doesn't pertain to himself has crossed the line. Jaywalking or murder - it doesn't matter. Once the line is crossed, law no longer constrains them - only the necessity to rationalize one's actions by claiming "victimhood."

This sounds a lot like Trump doesn't it?

[TheDrake]

No, rationalizing how rioters who burn down buildings and, just as importantly, verbally threaten murder and arson are not the real bad guys is illogical. Once the initial act has occurred, the intent is criminal and ongoing.

Since that's immutable, I'm glad to know you condemn the rioting and looting committed by the Sons of Liberty. Because make no mistake, that is exactly what we are talking about here. A government that has failed its people, relies on force to make people compliant, and turns a deaf ear to those who decry the injustice must inevitably be made right by force of arms if necessary.

[Seriati]

Are their any laws about allowing "Militia" in the streets

Yes, you can see the Constitutional rights related to bearing arms, free assembly and ultimately to self defense.

Who here is in favor of condoning such a thing as Militia on the streets?

No one.  We empowered the government to create police departments and passed laws criminalizing certain conduct for a reason.

The problem is that when the government abdicates its responsibility to enforce those laws, which is unarguably what the Democrats endorse, it leaves the citizens no choice but to re-assume the burdens that government was formed to take off their hands.  The Democrats are breaching the social contract by refusing to prosecute violations of law.

Does it depend if they are a white or black militia

Not in the least.  Black militias are just as welcome to protect against violations of the laws of the country.  They are not however any more welcome to decide to violate the laws in pursuit of higher goals than white militias would be.

All people, black and white, are entitled to self defense.  When defending others all people are subject to the risk that they will be acting wrongfully and be liable to prosecution.

What should the minimum age of participants in a militia be?

Don't even understand this question.  What is the minimum age to participate in self defense?  Are children allowed to kill attempted rapists if they can?

What kind of training should they have?

Self defense doesn't require training.  If you want trained law enforcement, we have this group called "police" that could be enforcing our laws instead.

How do you hold the Militia accountable?

Same way you hold anyone else accountable.  Self defense is a right, defense of others entails a certain amount of risk at law.

Does it matter if Militia come from outer state?

Not really.  Fighting anarchy is the responsibility of all citizens.

How the crap are Militia considered LAW and ORDER?

Not sure why you think they are.  Militia is only involved because order has broken down and laws are being violated in ways that threaten the very principles upon which our Constitutional order is based.

Law and order would be the police arresting rioters, arsonists and violence committing protestors, prosecutors filing the applicable charges and courts putting them in jail.  Which is exactly what the local Democratic governments have abdicated with orders to defund the police, force them to let the rioters and looters proceed unchecked and removing any requirements for bail.  Its exactly what the activist prosecutors have been put in place to do, and have done by announcing they will not press or even file charges against criminals arrested in connection with riots unless they were involved in direct violence (which they make no evidence to determine).

Don't whine about a break down in Law and Order when you support exactly the conduct that refuses to apply that law and order.  What did you expect that no one would respond just because the Democrats are able to put in power a handful of elites who refuse to do their duty?

What we also see are witches being burned, Tutsis being macheted, blacks being lynched, and the list goes on.

Really?  Where did you see a witch being burned?  Show where you've seen blacks being lynched.  You're lying, you have not seen any of that.  Reading in a history book about witches being burned has NOTHING to do with modern justice or lack there of.  The results of blacks being lynched was decades of justice reform, civil rights improvement and massive amounts of protective laws being put in place.  All of which is being undermined by these actions today.

You are bearing false witness.

As an aside, driving 30 miles from out of state in order to carry a gun while putting themselves in the middle of a protest in someone else's city can in no way be characterized as "defending themselves".

Really, and is driving to a protest for black lives then somehow also false if you're doing it in another community?  What makes defending racial justice as a roving partisan different than defending constitutional principles?

Fact is, the damage that the left is doing to the country is nationwide even though the burning, looting and crime are currently localized.  It's every citizens problem when the local government chooses to let mobs violate the rights of its own citizens in pursuit of their own partisan political advantage.

Wielding a gun to protect somebody else's used car dealership - how does that work, anyway?

Same way as defending it with fists I'd imagine.  Nothing about having a gun for self defense is out of the ordinary in that context.

I note, you didn't choose to respond to the NY Times link.  It looks in that article like the first shots they can identify are coming from someone other than the kid, who fires after he hears shots and is being charged.  According to the link in the second event they heard 16 shots (far more than the kid fired) and one of the people he shot had a pistol in hand.

What about going to a protest means you should be carrying a gun?  really nothing.  Going to a planned riot and session of wanton criminality on the other hand, sure does.

What if those evil hoodlums don't stop smashing the cars when you tell them to?

I take it then that smashing cars doesn't justify shooting them to you.  What if they were beating a man with a baseball bat?  Okay then?  What if they are throwing incendiary devices at police officers?  Okay then?  What if say, they're deciding to rape a woman in the middle of the day on a subway platform?  Okay then?

If you can't understand why a situation where people feel entitled to smash and burn cars needs to end, then you're not really advocating for anything but anarchy.  The rule of anarchy is always defend yourself.  Militias are doing exactly that, even when they travel, by trying to stem the sense that there is no consequence to such abusive behavior by looters and rioters.

What if they don't stop when you aim your guns at them?  Do you shoot the for rioters not listening to armed, self-appointed militia telling them what to do?

No, they get shot for engaging in violent anarchy in direct violation of our laws.  They get shot because complicit politicians seeking partisan advantage refuse to do their sworn duty and enforce the laws - laws that have been there in some cases for our entire history and that no rationale person thinks are the wrong laws, or even in any way racist.  They get shot for being personally culpable in creating a system that is ruled by anarchy and the might makes right precepts of anarchy.  We had a system based on justice, these individuals are facing the consequences of breaking the social constructs that protect them.  They get shot because they'd rather be shot than accept that the police should be enforcing the laws.

The whole situation is created by people who don't believe in the responsibilities of citizenship while they abuse its privileges.

Now what are you going to do when the anarchy stretches into your house and the houses of your friends and family?  I somehow don't believe you're going to roll over and let them do what ever they want to you and yours, but you're perfectly content if they're doing it to someone else.

[TheDrake]

What about going to a protest means you should be carrying a gun?  really nothing.  Going to a planned riot and session of wanton criminality on the other hand, sure does.

The NRA would disagree with you. They believe you should go armed to church, birthday parties, definitely to protests - or did you miss all those armed guys going to down to Unite the Right?

[TheDeamon]

What about going to a protest means you should be carrying a gun?  really nothing.  Going to a planned riot and session of wanton criminality on the other hand, sure does.

The NRA would disagree with you. They believe you should go armed to church, birthday parties, definitely to protests - or did you miss all those armed guys going to down to Unite the Right?

You do realize the NRA was founded with the goal of arming blacks and training them in the use of firearms so they could defend themselves from the KKK?

You do realize the NRA advocates that law abiding citizens carry at all times so that in the event that a Criminal does strike, a "good guy with a guy" is able to intervene?

At no point has the NRA advocated for criminals to be the only ones carrying guns. Rather they advocate you have a gun because otherwise it will only be the criminals who have guns. Criminals don't need an advocacy group to tell them than being armed helps them in committing many crimes.

[DonaldD]

You do realize the NRA was founded with the goal of arming blacks and training them in the use of firearms so they could defend themselves from the KKK?

That's pure historical revisionism... especially since the NRA predated the creation of the first klan chapter by several years. Training union soldiers?  Sure.  I suppose you could argue that training Union soldiers defended Blacks from the Confederacy.  But arming and training Blacks to allow them to defend themselves against the non-existent KKK?  No.

Regardless, making a statement about what the NRA was prior to it's redefinition in the 1970s is just silly.  It's like wmLambert making the argument that the Republican party cannot be supported by racists in any way because - Lincoln!!

[TheDrake]

What about going to a protest means you should be carrying a gun?  really nothing.  Going to a planned riot and session of wanton criminality on the other hand, sure does.

The NRA would disagree with you. They believe you should go armed to church, birthday parties, definitely to protests - or did you miss all those armed guys going to down to Unite the Right?

You do realize the NRA was founded with the goal of arming blacks and training them in the use of firearms so they could defend themselves from the KKK?

You do realize the NRA advocates that law abiding citizens carry at all times so that in the event that a Criminal does strike, a "good guy with a guy" is able to intervene?

At no point has the NRA advocated for criminals to be the only ones carrying guns. Rather they advocate you have a gun because otherwise it will only be the criminals who have guns. Criminals don't need an advocacy group to tell them than being armed helps them in committing many crimes.

I don't know which is worse, that you equate going to a protest with being a criminal, or that you pick and choose which protests fall into that category.

[TheDeamon]

I don't know which is worse, that you equate going to a protest with being a criminal, or that you pick and choose which protests fall into that category.

Going to a protest where property destruction occurs, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it after a "reasonable person standard is crossed," makes you a criminal.

If you go to a protest, but leave once criminal activity starts and you're aware of it, you're golden.

If you go to a protest, and act to stop the criminal activity once you're aware of it, you're golden.

If you go to a protest where "a reasonable person should know" criminal activity probably will happen, while dressed in the same attire as a "reasonable person should know" person likely to be doing criminal things at said event("black block"), and remain present after criminal activity begins. Then yes, you ARE a criminal.

[DonaldD]

Going to a protest where property destruction occurs, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it after a "reasonable person standard is crossed," makes you a criminal.

So, going to a protest where your CBP partners assault peaceful protesters, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it also makes you a criminal? Especially if they go wearing attire that a a "reasonable person should know" will be worn by those likely to assault protesters?

If you go to a protest where "a reasonable person should know" criminal activity probably will happen, while dressed in the same attire as a "reasonable person should know" person likely to be doing criminal things at said event("black block"), and remain present after criminal activity begins. Then yes, you ARE a criminal.

Let me explain to you why this is silly.  Violent malcontents will gravitate to all large scale protests; this is especially the case where the protest is against violence by the state, and where those responsible for the violence being protested are also tasked with policing the protest.  Your right to peaceably assemble is in no way dependent on what other, completely independent people are doing down the street. Nor is it dependent on your fashion choices.

By your argument, anybody attending a large scale protest is a criminal.

[TheDeamon]

Going to a protest where property destruction occurs, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it after a "reasonable person standard is crossed," makes you a criminal.

So, going to a protest where your CBP partners assault peaceful protesters, and remaining there while doing nothing to stop it also makes you a criminal? Especially if they go wearing attire that a a "reasonable person should know" will be worn by those likely to assault protesters?

Acting in the capacity of a CBP officer changes the situation. They're not protesters, they're there to perform a job.

Their first priority is carrying out their lawful orders. Dealing with the unlawful behavior of their comrade at arms is something best addressed in a manner that does not impede the primary objective. Only after the primary objective is achieved do you then devote time and resources to address the other issue, unless it appears their unlawful behavior is creating other safety hazards which prevent completion of the initial objective.

Now because that action is being taken after everything else was done, and in that specific case, probably once they were back in the federal building and safe from the crowd(which also means they couldn't see what was done). You don't know what they did about that. From comments from Barr on the matter in the past, there are investigations into that by the IG and possibly others as well.

It is entirely likely that trip out was that officers last time being sent out. It's also entirely likely disciplinary actions were initiated and may still be underway.

If you go to a protest where "a reasonable person should know" criminal activity probably will happen, while dressed in the same attire as a "reasonable person should know" person likely to be doing criminal things at said event("black block"), and remain present after criminal activity begins. Then yes, you ARE a criminal.

Let me explain to you why this is silly.  Violent malcontents will gravitate to all large scale protests; this is especially the case where the protest is against violence by the state, and where those responsible for the violence being protested are also tasked with policing the protest.  Your right to peaceably assemble is in no way dependent on what other, completely independent people are doing down the street. Nor is it dependent on your fashion choices.

Not true at all, there have actually been a number of BLM protests where the crowd DID police their own ranks, when people acted out, they were caught by the crowd and turned over to police.

They adhered to one of my conditionals, once they saw criminal behavior occur, they stopped it. They were peaceful protesters with a few bad apples they happily and quickly rid themselves of.

But for the crowd that does nothing when it comes to policing their own ranks? Don't get upset when the police start doing so for you. And that isn't going to be pleasant for you. By failing to "put distance" between yourself and the malcontents, you are actively aiding and abetting that malcontent.

So again, you have two choices in such a circumstance. If you are a peaceful protester, you either ensure your group can police itself, of if you determine self-policing won't work, move the peaceful protesters away from the malcontents so the police can take care of them without involving the larger protest.

If the malcontents move with you, rinse and repeat the calculation as needed. Either start policing your ranks and detain them for the police. Or keep moving away from the malcontents, do not give them cover.

[DonaldD]

Acting in the capacity of a CBP officer changes the situation. They're not protesters, they're there to perform a job.

So are the protesters - they were there very specifically to protest and police the violent tendencies of government paid employees - let's call them unarmed (for the most part) militias.  Kinda like Rittenhouse, but without the head count.

The one difference is the constitution protects the protester's right to peaceably assemble, but constrains the CBP from brutalizing people standing in front of them while talking about honour.

It is entirely likely that trip out was that officers last time being sent out. It's also entirely likely disciplinary actions were initiated and may still be underway.

Wow, the naïveté is strong in this one. 

[TheDeamon]

Acting in the capacity of a CBP officer changes the situation. They're not protesters, they're there to perform a job.

So are the protesters - they were there very specifically to protest and police the violent tendencies of government paid employees - let's call them unarmed (for the most part) militias.  Kinda like Rittenhouse, but without the head count.

There is so much nuance you're glossing over and going to otherwise try to compare apples to oranges on with that statement, it isn't worth breaking down.

The one difference is the constitution protects the protester's right to peaceably assemble, but constrains the CBP from brutalizing people standing in front of them while talking about honour.

But the constitution does not grant someone the right to disobey a lawful order, peaceful protester or not, that is issued in response to unlawful behavior.

He did not have the right to continue to remain standing where he was, now that likewise did not grant the LEO the right to do what he did, so both sides were in the wrong on that.

It is entirely likely that trip out was that officers last time being sent out. It's also entirely likely disciplinary actions were initiated and may still be underway.

Wow, the naïveté is strong in this one.

Not really, I fully acknowledge the extent of the "disciplinary action" may have been getting yelled at and a piece of paper placed in his service file saying he'd been duly informed that such conduct is not "appropriate" and they considered the matter settled pending further conclusions from the IG.

[TheDrake]

Well according to you people should expect violent consequences if they disobey an unlawful order as well?

[TheDeamon]

Well according to you people should expect violent consequences if they disobey an unlawful order as well?

When it comes to LEO's best practice is to comply with their demands, legal or not, and take up the issue of the legality of their commands after the fact.

And I'm foggy on the scenario where I said that was possible, care to refresh my memory on that with context rather than the selective hat pull you just did?

As the track record of late on people keeping my comments in their proper context seems to be rather poor.

[TheDrake]

Well according to you people should expect violent consequences if they disobey an unlawful order as well?

When it comes to LEO's best practice is to comply with their demands, legal or not, and take up the issue of the legality of their commands after the fact.

And I'm foggy on the scenario where I said that was possible, care to refresh my memory on that with context rather than the selective hat pull you just did?

As the track record of late on people keeping my comments in their proper context seems to be rather poor.

It was an impression, thus the question mark. But you just confimed my guess. The problem with bringing it up after the fact, is that most complaints go in the favor of the officer.

[TheDeamon]

Well according to you people should expect violent consequences if they disobey an unlawful order as well?

When it comes to LEO's best practice is to comply with their demands, legal or not, and take up the issue of the legality of their commands after the fact.

And I'm foggy on the scenario where I said that was possible, care to refresh my memory on that with context rather than the selective hat pull you just did?

As the track record of late on people keeping my comments in their proper context seems to be rather poor.

It was an impression, thus the question mark. But you just confimed my guess. The problem with bringing it up after the fact, is that most complaints go in the favor of the officer.

Better to be alive and healthy, albeit very unhappy(but with a political recourse available if inclined, after legal options failed), than dead or disabled.

As a vet, I fully understand the idea that some things are worth dying for, but I'm also with Patton on the idea of making the other guy die for his country(or ideas) rather than volunteering myself to be the dead guy. I'd choose to live to fight another day.

[DJQuag]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=The%2bCool%2bZone&amp=true

By all means. Keep on talking about how the people lucky enough to have the spare time to go mug at the camera for Fox News means so much. When the true revolution comes...the only question will be why did you sit back and do nothing. Why did you only profit.

[TheDeamon]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=The%2bCool%2bZone&amp=true

By all means. Keep on talking about how the people lucky enough to have the spare time to go mug at the camera for Fox News means so much. When the true revolution comes...the only question will be why did you sit back and do nothing. Why did you only profit.

The "revolution" the socialists and communists want to start in America isn't going to go very far. It certainly has enough support to meet enough of the right conditions to trigger a civil war primed and ready. But it has no influence among the groups it would need in order to achieve what its goals are.

Further, the areas it will desperately need to control in order to succeed exist in predominately "Red" conservative areas. Which means the Republicans get to play defense. And given the backgrounds of a very huge swath of those guys, that's not the game you want them to be playing. And it's the one they will be playing.

I weep for the country if it happens, it will be a meat grinder for the history books. Even worse for the rest of the world, is what China may get up to while "the United States" are fighting each other.

But while I loathe the crony capitalism system currently in play in the United States, the Democrats aren't offering fixes for that, they want to make it worse(the GOP are not angels on that front either). But maybe after few million Democratic voters kill themselves trying to assault a proverbial red wall(sadly taking many others with them along the way), saner heads will prevail.

But I have doubts. I'd prefer to remain under the constitutional government we have, although there certainly are some things that need tweaked. I'm currently not certain it would be able to survive the strain of this particular encounter regardless of which side prevails, as they'll likely fix "other things" that should not be touched along the way. In any case, while one side may " prevail," it certainly won't be a "win."

[wmLambert]

... It's like wmLambert making the argument that the Republican party cannot be supported by racists in any way because - Lincoln!!

You have no credibility at all, do you? You took the challenge to avoid the debate fallacy of "Laughter by Intimidation" to double down on it, proving your lack of integrity and intelligence. Too bad you have no real answers to simple common sense and factual data.

The reason Democrats are so easily derided for immoral political stances, is their own history and legacy. The word "projection" may raise your hackles, but that is your problem. You cannot honorably compare the beginning of the NRA with the beginning of the KKK. I can speak about the history of the KKK being bad and connected with the Democrats, and you have to make up insinuations that the NRA was started to be evil. Please explain away this deflection of yours.

Now AntiFa, BLM, and Occupy Wall Street are subsets of the Democrat Party, just like the KKK was. The leaders of BLM are avowed Communists, with a factual history, and quite quote-worthy, even though the MSM, tries to ignore them. BLM, AntiFa, and Occupy Wall Street brag about how much "Soros money" they get, yet if anyone mentions their own braggadocio, the brags are ignored. The White Nationalists come from the Democrat side. They always have - even after the Dems pretended they "went over" to the GOP with a provably ficticious Nixon "Southern Strategy." There are a few idiot-morons who are are bigots and racists, who actually swallowed the line that the GOP accepts them, when they don't.

Farrakhan is a bigot and a racist, yet the Dems accept him as one of their own. No GOP accepts David Duke, who was a protegé of George Wallace, another Democrat racist.

Why not spend your time asking your own Democrat Governors and Mayors to stop enabling rioters and looters, calling them a "summer of love?" Why not fight these big-city Dems to make them stop releasing criminals and rioters back into the street? Why lay it on Trump, when he has been on the side of goodness and light from the beginning? You did see both conventions, didn't you? Why accept Biden's ads complaining that Trump has no plan for Coronavirus, when he has followed the scientists from day one? The only plan Biden has put forward is to plagiarize Trump's words and actions, call them his own - and claim that Trump has no plan.

Biden adopted the Green New Deal to try to draw the Bernie supporters, then tells everyone, "You know me, I'm middle of the road." ...Just after he said he is the most progressive candidate ever. The man is not like Trump, who honors his pledges. Unlike normal politicians, when Trump makes a campaign promise, he keeps it. Biden is only words. He can't remember the words, but it doesn't keep him from spouting nonsense. I read his official website and all his words there are just reprints of speeches that change from day to day. What he says one day is forgotten the next.

[wmLambert]

...I'd prefer to remain under the constitutional government we have, although there certainly are some things that need tweaked.

No, the Constitution needs to be followed rather than be ignored. Woodrow Wilson was a self-proclaimed cerebral genius educator. He wrote the handbook of treating the Constitution as a suggestion that needs to be reinterpreted by "great thinkers." John Dewey designed our educational system to create illogical "followers" who cannot follow logic and decide things for themselves. He was hoodwinked by the Engels-Marxist rhetoric, and admitted what he proposed, and why he wanted drones, instead of citizens. The Constitution can set both errors to right. But we need to get rid of the Wilsonian progressives to do so.

[TheDeamon]

...I'd prefer to remain under the constitutional government we have, although there certainly are some things that need tweaked.

No, the Constitution needs to be followed rather than be ignored. Woodrow Wilson was a self-proclaimed cerebral genius educator. He wrote the handbook of treating the Constitution as a suggestion that needs to be reinterpreted by "great thinkers." John Dewey designed our educational system to create illogical "followers" who cannot follow logic and decide things for themselves. He was hoodwinked by the Engels-Marxist rhetoric, and admitted what he proposed, and why he wanted drones, instead of citizens. The Constitution can set both errors to right. But we need to get rid of the Wilsonian progressives to do so.

Well, a Balanced Budget Amendment would be a very good thing going forward. It permanently kills any attempt to propose something as insane as the "Green New Deal" going forward unless they can find a way to pay for it that won't cause the voters to toss them out of office.

[TheDrake]

...I'd prefer to remain under the constitutional government we have, although there certainly are some things that need tweaked.

No, the Constitution needs to be followed rather than be ignored. Woodrow Wilson was a self-proclaimed cerebral genius educator. He wrote the handbook of treating the Constitution as a suggestion that needs to be reinterpreted by "great thinkers." John Dewey designed our educational system to create illogical "followers" who cannot follow logic and decide things for themselves. He was hoodwinked by the Engels-Marxist rhetoric, and admitted what he proposed, and why he wanted drones, instead of citizens. The Constitution can set both errors to right. But we need to get rid of the Wilsonian progressives to do so.

Well, a Balanced Budget Amendment would be a very good thing going forward. It permanently kills any attempt to propose something as insane as the "Green New Deal" going forward unless they can find a way to pay for it that won't cause the voters to toss them out of office.

It would also stop things like Trump's tax cuts. You still in?

[TheDeamon]

Well, a Balanced Budget Amendment would be a very good thing going forward. It permanently kills any attempt to propose something as insane as the "Green New Deal" going forward unless they can find a way to pay for it that won't cause the voters to toss them out of office.

It would also stop things like Trump's tax cuts. You still in?

Which ones?

Honestly, I'm indifferent on them in general. So sure?

But... Contingencies for "emergency situations" would need to be included for obvious reasons. And the current situation with Covid19 would likely meet that criteria, so he'd probably be able to slip in a short-term(We'll say no more than 1 to 2 years) tax cut by way of that.

That is admittedly the most difficult problem with a Balaced Budget Amendment, is how you can codify the criteria for where it won't apply that cannot be abused by either Congress or PotUS, if not both. Or else we end up in a never ending string of "emergencies" or more annoying, a declared war against the island Nation of Tahingi, population: 5 that never gets resolved for obvious reasons... So long as they're in a declared war, the balanced budget requirements don't apply.

Sure putting in a super-majority requirement to "recertify" the emergency status sounds great as another way to address it, but could instead be used as an excuse to generate more pork, not less.

[DJQuag]

That revolution may or may not go so far. It's usually depended on 1/3 unforced class. Believe it or not, but at that level of society with that level of desperation that's when shut starts to adjust.

[DJQuag]

That revolution may or may not go so far. It's usually depended on 1/3 unforced class. Believe it or not, but at that level of society with that level of desperation that's when shut starts to adjust.

The funniest thing for me is when you all keep on trying to take in the expectations or *censored* you a clock. Who gives a *censored*.

[TheDeamon]

That revolution may or may not go so far. It's usually depended on 1/3 unforced class. Believe it or not, but at that level of society with that level of desperation that's when shut starts to adjust.

By all metrics except population age demographics, we're "primed and ready to go" if it does go anywhere, it's going to involve the oldest cohort of revolutionaries seen to date. But we'll see.

[wmLambert]

There are basically four groups of people who are part of a revolution. Firstly, are the idiot-morons who are clueless, but willing to become cannon fodder for the other groups. These are the people, when interviewed, who are shown to be clueless, repeating empty clichés and hollow phrases, but don't know any history nor current events.

Secondly, are the insular activists who clamor for personal power and wealth, by following marching orders and payment for their services. They are enabled by similar peers who are as jaded and dishonorable as themselves. They only look for anything that supports their intentions, and ignore any self-education.

Thirdly, are the sensible observers, who don't volunteer to be activists, but get drawn into others' distractions and disturbances. They can see a path to decency and responsible living. They become targets of the activists and cannon-fodder, and in the process of being maligned, become active opponents of what they see as evil. They become counter-protestors.

Lastly, is everyone else, who shake their heads and dismiss the stupidity. They get drawn in, kicking and screaming all the way, but don't want to be there.

Notice, there is no group of honest philosophers who follow sanity. These people stopped wearing MGA hats when wearers became targets, so joined the last group. When innocents become targets, there are no fence-sitters, no more innocents. They still won't answer polls accurately, but don't do it for any reason but self-preservation.

You can't segregate groups by age or demographics - it revolves more about education and peer-pressure. ...And authority figures. It gets complicated when authority figures spout fake news, and lie about others.

[TheDeamon]

And then one of my more distant relatives on facebook shared a post which reminds me of the other reason why I don't fear the left as a serious existential threat to the country.

So many of them think food comes from the grocery store, and have no concept at all of the larger supply chain that is involved in making that food "appear" at the grocery store. (The comment they shared, from elsewhere, was basically. "I'm not sure why farmers bother growing crops, most people buy their groceries at Albertson's or Kroger's.")

Wars are won on logistics. The Conservatives understand this to varying degrees. Your typical urban liberal? They have no idea of where to even begin. But you can be certain that if it does come to war, the first things to get removed from the board for liberal communities is the logistics support needed to sustain their population. Something they're actually doing a half-way decent job of doing to themselves right now with the rioting.

[wmLambert]

...the most difficult problem with a Balanced Budget Amendment, is how you can codify the criteria for where it won't apply that cannot be abused by either Congress or PotUS, if not both. Or else we end up in a never ending string of "emergencies" or more annoying, a declared war against the island Nation of Tahingi, population: 5 that never gets resolved for obvious reasons... So long as they're in a declared war, the balanced budget requirements don't apply.

Sure putting in a super-majority requirement to "recertify" the emergency status sounds great as another way to address it, but could instead be used as an excuse to generate more pork, not less.

Funny, but take a step back. For years, the Dems ran the budget committees with Keynesian economics that the American Economics Association disallowed as invalid and wrong. They make budgets that start at where it left off, not at zero-baseline budgeting. Any budgeting that stopped automatic increases was considered cuts.

Balanced budgeting is good, but make accounting accountable. Use the Laffer-curve to stop runaway taxing that brings in less revenue. Stop over regulation that kills all positive cultural norms. Forget the French economist Frédéric Bastiat's "broken window fallacy." Remember that most of our debt is owed to ourselves, and not to China. There are many things that impact our economy, and being righteously clever for a change would be nice. I like the Trump order that for any new regulation, several old ones must be deleted. I like the penny plan: for every on-budget dollar the federal government spent, it spends one penny less for the next five years (at which point balance is reached), with spending then growing at one percent thereafter.

[DonaldD]

Of course, the usual mistake when referring to the Laffer curve is to assume one is on the upside or the downside of the curve, and tax cutters always assume that tax increases will reduce tax revenue. There is no evidence that is the case.

As well, the Laffer curve does not take into account differences in types of taxes, and assumes they all have the same effect.  Basing this oversimplified curve on a single variable ('average' tax rate) is of course ridiculous.