JoyV

[quote=JohnCorrespondent]I'm glad you won your court case. I've met a lot of people who didn't because they couldn't get that far with the court system to even have a serious court process. It's not their fault. It's the fault of the courts or of whomever oversees them and causes the courts to be as they are. I believe the general solution is a kind of "t***sparency" in which the processes are documented, the documentation is verifiable, and proceedings are tape-recorded by the litigants (the parents) (transcripts are sometimes false and I wouldn't trust court personnel with tapes either).

I doubt that I'll be able to respond to your entire post.

You say property rights protects the poor from the rich. Good, if it does. I thought there was a concept of "property rights" which was protecting or benefitting rich people too much, to the detriment of the poor and most people.

I'm fuzzy on what exactly _are_ the "Conservative ideals" (although I think you did describe some); so maybe I should have pursued or studied _that_ point some more, before launching into an argument about them. I think the difference between us might have more to do with implementation than ideals. If current Republicans in power were correctly following Conservative ideals, and implementing them correctly at least within their own party, then maybe I wouldn't have such a problem with them as I do now. For example:

One Conservative ideal (A) might be to honor and obey and trust whomever's in power, such as Donald Trump. However, it might instead be true that one Conservative ideal (B) is to hold high officials accountable to the People, and to prevent too much centralization of power. Under (B) Republicans in the Senate might be reining in Trump or making him behave better or holding him accountable. So, for example, Mitt Romney might be the only Republican Senator honoring the ideal (B) (when v****g about the impeachment).

Pre-judging asylum seekers: I formed my ideas (or adopted certain ideas) about this many months ago from news I was hearing and reading. Now I'm doing a few quick lookups online to get some illustrations of the ideas:

Headline: "Stranded Asylum Seekers Facing Rio Grande Flooding Plead With U.S—Stop Ignoring Us". (Thought: Is the U.S. "ignoring" asylum seekers?). Ref: https://www.newsweek.com/stranded-asylum-seekers-facing-rio-grande-flooding-plead-u-sstop-ignoring-us-1522052

Trump "seem[s] to defy U.S. and international laws protecting the rights of the desperate to seek asylum from persecution in their home countries." (Thought: If he _is_ "defying" "laws", wouldn't that mean he's _not_ being "Conservative", but instead being "radical" in a destructive way? What do "Conservatives" say about that? I thought that most Trump supporters called themselves Conservatives.). Ref: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-16/trumps-asylum-immigration-daca-dreamers-e******n

"Trump Implies Asylum Seekers Are Liars..." (Thought: Depending on the timing, this might represent prejudice, or "pre-judging", by Trump.). Ref: https://splinternews.com/trump-implies-asylum-seekers-are-liars-so-its-not-hard-1827016969

"... This Is The Language Trump Uses To Talk About Immigrants". Ref: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/trump-immigrant-language-words-infest-snake-violent What I think is: There's been a backlog of asylum hearings: asylum seekers have to wait months to get a hearing. (This is before C****-**; of course it's even worse under C****-**.) So, _I_ think it would have been appropriate for the President to say, "The problem is we don't have enough facilities or trained personnel to handle all the asylum seekers." And so then a solution could be considered: make more facilities or train more personnel. There's asylum law, so follow it. Hear each case before deciding it. But instead what I heard Trump doing is to pre-judge those people, and then his followers do similarly. Rather than own the problem that it takes more facilities and personnel to hold hearings, Trump just derides the asylum seekers rather than provide the hearings. He pre-judges them.[/quote]



First as to my court case, what makes it even more surprising is that I had a court appointed lawyer. But he really put in the effort and was knowledgeable.

There is a difference between being a Republican and being a Conservative. And an even bigger difference between being a Republican politician and being a Conservative. Don't equate one with the other. Your "A" is not a Conservative ideal. In fact obey authority is one of the hallmarks of socialist countries. USSR, N**I Germany,and Maoist China to name a few. "B" is a Conservative ideal, but not necessarily exclusively Conservative. But it is better to say "all are equal under the law"

As for your articles on asylum seekers, let me take the flooding situation first. How can the conditions (i.e. campground) provided by Mexico be Trump's fault?

International law is a moot point. Our country's laws MUST fall under our constitution to be valid constitutional law, NOT the UN. When a law is passed which is counter to our constitution, IT SHOULD BE CHANGED!!!! But our basic law on asylum require the person be fleeing political persecution, not crime or economic disadvantage. Show me an example of someone denied asylum who really qualified for it?

AS for the Buzzfeed article, I don't see what was wrong with Trump's words.
Trump's tweet referred to in the article by Buzzfield, " We shouldn’t be hiring judges by the thousands, as our ridiculous i*********n l*ws demand, we should be changing our laws, building the Wall, hire Border Agents and Ice and not let people come into our country based on the legal phrase they are told to say as their password."

If demanding the law actually be followed is considered prejudging, then so be it.

JoyV

[quote=JohnCorrespondent]I'm glad you won your court case. I've met a lot of people who didn't because they couldn't get that far with the court system to even have a serious court process. It's not their fault. It's the fault of the courts or of whomever oversees them and causes the courts to be as they are. I believe the general solution is a kind of "t***sparency" in which the processes are documented, the documentation is verifiable, and proceedings are tape-recorded by the litigants (the parents) (transcripts are sometimes false and I wouldn't trust court personnel with tapes either).

I doubt that I'll be able to respond to your entire post.

You say property rights protects the poor from the rich. Good, if it does. I thought there was a concept of "property rights" which was protecting or benefitting rich people too much, to the detriment of the poor and most people.

I'm fuzzy on what exactly _are_ the "Conservative ideals" (although I think you did describe some); so maybe I should have pursued or studied _that_ point some more, before launching into an argument about them. I think the difference between us might have more to do with implementation than ideals. If current Republicans in power were correctly following Conservative ideals, and implementing them correctly at least within their own party, then maybe I wouldn't have such a problem with them as I do now. For example:

One Conservative ideal (A) might be to honor and obey and trust whomever's in power, such as Donald Trump. However, it might instead be true that one Conservative ideal (B) is to hold high officials accountable to the People, and to prevent too much centralization of power. Under (B) Republicans in the Senate might be reining in Trump or making him behave better or holding him accountable. So, for example, Mitt Romney might be the only Republican Senator honoring the ideal (B) (when v****g about the impeachment).

Pre-judging asylum seekers: I formed my ideas (or adopted certain ideas) about this many months ago from news I was hearing and reading. Now I'm doing a few quick lookups online to get some illustrations of the ideas:

Headline: "Stranded Asylum Seekers Facing Rio Grande Flooding Plead With U.S—Stop Ignoring Us". (Thought: Is the U.S. "ignoring" asylum seekers?). Ref: https://www.newsweek.com/stranded-asylum-seekers-facing-rio-grande-flooding-plead-u-sstop-ignoring-us-1522052

Trump "seem[s] to defy U.S. and international laws protecting the rights of the desperate to seek asylum from persecution in their home countries." (Thought: If he _is_ "defying" "laws", wouldn't that mean he's _not_ being "Conservative", but instead being "radical" in a destructive way? What do "Conservatives" say about that? I thought that most Trump supporters called themselves Conservatives.). Ref: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-06-16/trumps-asylum-immigration-daca-dreamers-e******n

"Trump Implies Asylum Seekers Are Liars..." (Thought: Depending on the timing, this might represent prejudice, or "pre-judging", by Trump.). Ref: https://splinternews.com/trump-implies-asylum-seekers-are-liars-so-its-not-hard-1827016969

"... This Is The Language Trump Uses To Talk About Immigrants". Ref: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/trump-immigrant-language-words-infest-snake-violent What I think is: There's been a backlog of asylum hearings: asylum seekers have to wait months to get a hearing. (This is before C****-**; of course it's even worse under C****-**.) So, _I_ think it would have been appropriate for the President to say, "The problem is we don't have enough facilities or trained personnel to handle all the asylum seekers." And so then a solution could be considered: make more facilities or train more personnel. There's asylum law, so follow it. Hear each case before deciding it. But instead what I heard Trump doing is to pre-judge those people, and then his followers do similarly. Rather than own the problem that it takes more facilities and personnel to hold hearings, Trump just derides the asylum seekers rather than provide the hearings. He pre-judges them.[/quote]

Build more facilities and hire more judges? How many more judges than the more than 3000 already? How many more facilities? Don't forget that with the facilities there is also the need for medical personnel and medical supplies, social workers, teachers and school supplies, maintenance workers and maintenance, food service and food, beds, blankets, pillows, clothing, diapers, baby food and formula, and much much more. And I thought the left was opposed to locking people up who have not been convicted of a crime. What he has done is far better both economically for us and giving a free choice for them. Many asylum seekers turn back to their own country when they find out they need to wait outside our border while their case is evaluated. If they feel waiting is more inconvenient than returning to their own country, then they must not have been fleeing for their lives in the first place.

Telling people they have to wait while their cases are evaluated, is NOT prejudging. Not letting them in WITHOUT judging them is NOT prejudging them! Have you never had to wait in line? Is waiting a judgement?

JoyV

The first article did not tell the whole story. All the other reporters, as well as the cameraman for the reporter who was arrested, listened too the police instructions to move to the sidewalk where they could still film. The reporter who would not move was right in the path of both the surging "protesters" and the route the police line would have to take to repel the surge. No other news person was arrested.

In the second, by what evidence does the writer assert that the cops would have arrested any B*M member who tried to cross the street. There is plenty of evidence that the cfops let B*M protesters get away with assault, vandalism, and arson. But crossing a street where there is a counter protest going on would irate the cops so much they would arrest B*M but not the counter protesters? Did it ever occur to you that the cops were doing just what they were rained to do in preventing a protest from escalating by keeping the parties away from each other WITHOUT arresting anyone unless there was no other choice?

In the third, which was the same incident as the last, the person himself said he was in a scrum. Yet though he was in the middle of the scrum, and when things calmed enough for him to realize he was injured; he was certain the injury and mace had been done to him by a police officer even though he never was aware of the officer until after. Protesters use mace as well as cops. How does he know another protester didn't cause the injuries, even if they didn't realize who they were injuring? A scrum is another word for a melee. It is very chaotic, disorienting, and can become very violent. The person was injured. But unless the moment of injury was caught on camera; no one knows who did the injury.

As for your example of rock throwing, it sounds like by rock you mean a small stone. I'm referring to the kind of rocks being thrown at cops in a r**t. The small ones are fist sized or bricks. The larger ones are chunks of masonry. These need not be perfectly aimed for the eye to be lethal. And that is not even counting the rocks thrown with the aid of a sling. The latter is not being used by the B*M and A****a thugs.

Here is an example in what the news called a peaceful protest which the cops for no reason attacked the protesters with teargas (which were actually smoke canisters and pepper balls).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=jcgxPV6Qf1k&feature=emb_logo

And a CBP agent k**led by a rock thrower.
https://conservativebase.com/border-agent-ambushed-and-k**led-by-rock-throwing-illegal-aliens-at-texas-mexico-border/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_throwing

And here is a Palestinian "protest" using slings. Sling thrown rocks are still used in hunting, k*****g an antelope, deer, wolf, or hyena. They can be thrown at up to 100 mph.

Carol Kelly

Real conservatives are alive and well. Mark my words.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"And a CBP agent k**led by a rock thrower.
https://conservativebase.com/border-agent-ambushed-and-k**led-by-rock-throwing-illegal-aliens-at-texas-mexico-border/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_throwing

And here is a Palestinian "protest" using slings. Sling thrown rocks are still used in hunting, k*****g an antelope, deer, wolf, or hyena. They can be thrown at up to 100 mph"

JohnCorrespondent

Yes that is surprising.

I don't have much handy for the rest of your post (and cannot spend a lot of time on it now, anyway). I read it. Without sources ready, I can repeat what I've heard & read as hearsay, which is that when asylum seekers did get hearings most of them were found to have merit. Meanwhile Trump asserts the opposite, or worse than the opposite, really.

Thanks for the explanation about "A" not being a Conservative ideal.

JohnCorrespondent

Yes, I knew that it _might_ not be possible to build "enough" facilities. I think it _is_ possible to build "enough". We could at least _try_ to build _more_ of wh**ever's needed. 40% of enough would be a lot better than 20% of enough. But that's not the whole picture anyway:

Asylum hearings provide knowledge. At least some (probably most) of the people coming here either as asylum seekers, or other legal ways, or illegally, are doing so because of problems exacerbated, if not created, by the U.S. The asylum hearings are a way we can find out what that situation is. The situation is that the U.S. meddling in other countries is creating problems for them. Sooner or later, those problems are going to come home to roost. It's better to address them right, rather than just continually making everything worse for them and worse for us.

I know you have some experience of courts, although there's so much variety of experience that I can't know much about what your experience was. You may have noticed that when a judge makes assumptions rather than listening, it's a poor way to address the case. The first judge in my case told us up front that he wouldn't have time to understand our situation. I believe it. Judges are not only often bad judges; they're overworked too, and they really don't have enough time for their caseloads. The solution is to use what data does get established and make some intelligent deduction about how to make the whole system better, so that it can take in knowledge better. Not just trash a bunch of people and cover up data (which is roughly the Trump approach).

What I object to are:

(a) Instead of giving the true description of the situation (that the current setup is insufficient to follow U.S. asylum law, either because of lack of facilities or lack of personnel or something else like that), Trump, and some other people who think as he does or follow his example, are giving a different description: that asylum seekers are not worthy anyway. Maybe you didn't notice Trump's trash-talking but I and many others have. Some people follow up what Trump says with violence.

Also:
(b) Trump uses up valuable resources and stirs up worse trouble, when he over-militarizes the border.

He acts like he's making us safer but the bigger effect is that a lot of our honorable laborers (such as in the harvesting of fruits and vegetables) are being given a hard time for basically nothing (except to stir up his "base").

I've heard about the gang(s) -- M13 -- or some such moniker -- and yes gangs are a problem, although I believe our main gang problems are homegrown, and I'm sure we export more violence than we import. If Trump really wanted to keep us safe (and had sense about it) he would focus on a real gang(s) instead of tarring a whole class of people the vast majority of which are actually less violent than homegrown Americans are on average. Hint: It doesn't make any sense that an i*****l i*******t would call attention to himself by causing trouble. (The reason more people don't understand that is that they already have the false notion that i*****l i*******ts don't have regular humanity, or regular sense, like us anyway.). Somewhere here in OPP several months ago someone posted a study showing that communities with either kind of immigrants, the illegal or the legal, have less violence than communities that don't have them.

JoyV

JohnCorrespondent

Immigration courts and judges fall under border security. Congress has fought to reduce border security funding since Trump came into office. With reduced funding, paying for additional immigration judges has been difficult. Yet under Trump the number of immigration judges went from 285 immigration judge teams to 500 immigration judge teams by cutting non-essentials. But adding more court buildings with reduced funding is far more difficult. You want more facilities? Then tell your Congressmen and Senators to increase funding!

It has become fashionable to blame all the ills in the world on the USA. You lump asylum seekers, immigrants, and i*****l a***ns as if they are in the same boat. To be accepted for asylum the person must be fleeing political persecution. Not economic hardship. Immigrants have a process they must go through, but don't need to be fleeing political persecution. But i*****l a***ns are ILLEGALLY invading another country. This is the case whether or not they have committed other crimes. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/dhs-secretary-90-percent-of-recent-asylum-seekers-skipped-their-hearings/

You wrote, "Maybe you didn't notice Trump's trash-talking but I and many others have. Some people follow up what Trump says with violence." Can you give examples of what you call Trump's trash talk? Do you mean him saying MS13 were animals? And if you blame Trump's words for violence, how much more should you blame the violence against police on Obama? If Trump's saying MS13 are animals leads to violence, what does Obama's assertions of police r****m and police brutality--even at the memorial to the murdered officers in Dallas, starting with those who were protecting the B*M marchers who were chanting "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!" When the shooting erupted against the cops, with the marchers in the way; they ran to the cops for protection. Then at the memorial service of those and the other ambushed cops, the cop's families had to hear Obama preaching police brutality and r****m. This is only one example. Whenever a shooting of a black man occurred, no matter the circumstances; he'd immediately bring blame police r****m.

You say Trump over militarizes the border. Do you live on the border? I live 4 miles from the border on a northbound river. I have had neighbors murdered by i******s. I, and many along the border have had property damage, robberies, and vandalism by i******s. I've had a dog shot. The national conservation area I live along has had environmental damage and sensitive native species destroyed. And for some reason a group of i******s shot and k**led the only troop of coatimundis on the San Pedro river. There have been no river coatimundis seen since this slaughter. The San Pedro has been clogged with trash, abandoned clothing, plastic packaging and empty water bottles, and dirty diapers. And there have been terrorists apprehended. Three murderers were caught within sight of my back door less than a month ago. Trump isn't OVER militarizing the border. He is not militarizing it enough!!!!

"OUR honorable laborers"??? What honorable laborers here on one of the 6 work permits on work permits have been targeted by Trump. How about immigrants and naturalized citizen honorable laborers? How about American honorable laborers?

I can't believe you actually believe any home grown Americans are MORE violent than MS13! Is he tarring all MS13 with the same brush? Yes!!! What other brush should be used? Can you point to any MS13 member who is not a vicious murderer who often dismembers their victims? Point out a single peaceful MS13 member.

Trump never said immigrants, or even i*****l i*******ts, don't have regular humanity. To say there are women and children being victimized in the caravans is NOT dehumanizing the victims of the rapes. Just the opposite. To decry the entry of people who are not screened to prevent separate out the criminals is NOT attacking the Hispanics or even i******s as a whole. But even those illegally coming across who are not drug traffickers, human traffickers, murderers, rapists, or terrorists; they are still committing a crime and making those who are trying to gain entry legally suffer a longer wait by clogging up immigration courts which must deal with the i******s first. We accept millions into our country each year. We issued more than 2 million work permits in 2017. And well over 1 million green cards. The news saying communities with i*****l i*******ts have less violence was not based on any study. It was based on one person saying that was what they saw. But there is a study showing one type of violence is less reported in sanctuary cities. That is domestic violence. But being less reported does not necessarily mean there is less. Only that it is reported less. Most of the most violent cities in the US are sanctuary cities.

1. Detroit -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 20.0
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 50
Mayor: Michael Edward Duggan, Democrat

2. Memphis, Tennessee -- recent move to remove sanctuary status
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.5
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 51
Mayor: Jim Strickland, Democrat

3. Birmingham, Alabama -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.3
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 52
Mayor: Randall Woodfin, Democrat

4. Baltimore -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 18.5
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 54
Mayor: Jack Young, Democrat

5. Flint, Michigan -- debate declaring sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 18.3
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 55
Mayor: Sheldon Neely, Democrat

6. St. Louis -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 18.2
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 55
Mayor: Lyda Krewson, Democrat

7. Danville, Illinois -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 18.0
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 55
Mayor: Ricky Williams Jr. (nonpartisan e******n)

8. Saginaw, Michigan -- not sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.7
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 60
Mayor: Floyd Kloc (nonpartisan e******n)

9. Wilmington, Delaware -- sancturay city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.3
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 61
Mayor: Mike Purzycki, Democrat

10. Camden, New Jersey -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.2
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 62
Mayor: Francisco Moran, Democrat

11. Pine Bluff, Arkansas -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 16.0
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 62
Mayor: Shirley Washington, Democrat

12. Kansas City, Missouri -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.9
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 63
Mayor: Quinton Lucas, Democrat

13. San Bernardino, California -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.3
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 65
Mayor: John Valdivia, Democrat

14. Alexandria, Louisiana -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.6
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 68
Mayor: Jeffrey Hall, Democrat

15. Little Rock, Arkansas -- not sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.6
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 68
Mayor: Frank Scott Jr., Democrat

16. Cleveland -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.5
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 69
Mayor: Frank Jackson, Democrat

17. Milwaukee -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.3
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 70=
Mayor: Tom Barrett, Democrat

18. Stockton, California -- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.2
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 70
Mayor: Michael Tubbs, Democrat

19. Monroe, Louisiana -- not sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.1
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 71
Mayor: James Earl Mayo, Democrat

20. Chester, Pennsylvania-- sanctuary city
Violent crime rate (per 1,000 residents): 14.0
Odds of being a victim: 1 in 71
Mayor: Thaddeus Kirkland, Democrat

JohnCorrespondent

When I read your reply yesterday, I wondered how you could interpret those articles as you did. So today I went back and looked again. You say:

"In the third, which was the same incident as the last, the person himself said he was in a scrum. Yet though he was in the middle of the scrum, and when things calmed enough for him to realize he was injured; he was certain the injury and mace had been done to him by a police officer even though he never was aware of the officer until after. Protesters use mace as well as cops. How does he know another protester didn't cause the injuries, even if they didn't realize who they were injuring? A scrum is another word for a melee. It is very chaotic, disorienting, and can become very violent. The person was injured. But unless the moment of injury was caught on camera; no one knows who did the injury."

You did not quote much, if anything, from the article itself! I counted my links to see which article you were referring to. Here's a quote from that "third" article you're describing: (You or any other reader can compare it with your above interpretation.):

"[W]hen the curfew hit and police fired teargas into the crowd of protesters, Ou stood steady, out of the way, documenting. And then the unexpected happened.

"'They literally started throwing concussive grenades in our direction, in the middle of the journalists,' he says. The police approached Ou directly and maced him in the face, spraying his camera, too. What ensued was a prolonged attack that involved being hit at with batons, being teargassed, dodging concussive grenades and begging for help.

"The account has been corroborated by several other journalists on the ground, including the Los Angeles Times’ Carolyn Cole, who incurred an eye injury, and Molly Hennesy-Fiske, who was shot with rubber bullets several times in the leg. They describe the journalists as having been 'completely against the wall, in an alcove, at least 15ft off the road to allow the police line to pass'."

I have to guess maybe you didn't even read that part of the article. I find it _way_ different from your description, and a significant part of the article.

Regarding rocks: I still say guns are more violent than rocks. Guns certainly represent the more powerful force generally. There are lots of ways to harm people or to "defend national interests" or wh**ever one wants to do. It would save lots of money if we could arm our police, military, and wh**ever forces Trump sends around, with rocks and slings rather than guns. Yet, for some reason, no-one has seriously considered doing so. Why would they favor guns instead? Meanwhile:

You illustrate with a reference about sling-thrown rocks. Why would it be necessary to bring those into the discussion? I think we can all agree that a sling-thrown rock can go a _lot_ faster than a merely "thrown" rock. With all those body-cams that police are supposed to be wearing, one could think that if sling-thrown rocks were a problem in these protests then a few people would have been caught on camera using slings. That would make interesting footage and I'm sure networks would be happy to pick it up and it would be seen on the nightly news. I haven't heard of it; surely it would have surfaced in some court case at least.

I bet if you look in the Guinness Book Of Records you could find an instance of murder by rock. But it would be a lot more rare than police brutality done without rocks -- in the U.S., at least. I'm aware of an ancient custom of death by stoning, in which lots of rocks are used; there was even a way to k**l a person by piling a weight of many rocks on top of him. Of course. There's no limit to the ways of violence that exist and have been used at one time or another. Bare-handed violence without any rock or club at all can also be lethal. But that doesn't make any of these things comparable in our current situation with guns, nor with police brutality.

JoyV

So if you are k**led by a rock are you less dead than if you are k**led by a gun? If you are k**led by a little derringer close up, or an elephant gun close up; would it be fair to say "but the elephant gun is more violent? Lethal is lethal, no matter if the death is by something very powerful or only moderately powerful.

You don't need to look at the Guinness Book of Records to find deaths by rocks (not thrown by slings), I posted of at least one where a thrown rock k**led a CBP officer. And the two CBP officers who were imprisoned for firing on a drug smuggler and allegedly hitting him in the butt (though no medical or even picture of the injury was ever presented or found), was done after one of the agents was felled by a rock hand thrown by the smuggler. He didn't die but was left knocked out. His partner did not know he wasn't dead until after he fired in defense. The smuggler was given lifetime immunity by Clinton if he would give testimony against the agents. The smuggler was caught again during the trial but was released due to the immunity. He had continued to bring in drugs until after Trump came in and asked the immunity be rescinded. Trump pardoned the sentences of Ramos and Compean who had spent years in solitary confinement.

Also, what the news calls rocks thrown by protesters include bricks, large chunks of masonry, and other projectiles including nail spiked fireworks.

But the lethality of being hit by a rock is not simply from the rock itself. If the officer is knocked out or incapacitated enough that he can no longer protect himself, he is vulnerable to being k**led by another weapon. This is what happened to an officer in Massachusetts and could have in the Ramos and Compean case.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/leoka

Your articles leave out details. I cannot quote of those details from an article which doesn't include it.


https://www.westernjournal.com/cnn-crew-arrested-live-broadcast/

Note that though it says the entire crew was arrested, who was filming if the cameraman was also arrested? I had read elsewhere that there were other news crews there which weren't standing in the way and were NOT arrested. And though the reporter kept saying they would move, they made no pr********ns to move.

As for your first article, the reporter wasn't reporting at the time but was part of the mob. When he yelled F**k You!!! to a cop, he ceased being a neutral party. Yelling such an expletive at a cop is just asking for trouble.
This quote in in your first article.
"One officer broke away from the pack and bucked him, Mathias said. "F*** you," the reporter responded."

As I stated in my previous reply, the 2nd article was complaining that counter protesters weren't being arrested when they entered the street dividing the two protest groups. The article stated, "There is no denying that if a B*M protester ran across the street, they would’ve been arrested on the spot." Since no counter protester NOR B*M protester was arrested, this opinion has no basis in reality.

The third article left out this quote, "“We do have an officer that was maced by someone in the crowd. We do have an officer that sustained a shoulder injury from the incident with the crowd. One of our vehicles, the windows were shattered by a brick,” Tally said." But when I read the 4 articles, I admit I also mixed up some of the details. So I was wrong on my response to your third article.

I don't know about all the incidents in your 4th article and am not going to take the time to research each. If I did, what else would I find which was left out of the story. I am confident that these reporters had altercations with police and/or were arrested by police. But there is probably more to the stories.

JohnCorrespondent

I've read your first paragraph, thus far.

You say # imm'n judge teams 285->500. Good, in that it would represent some increase (unless it were supposed to be 1000 and he cut it down to 500), and a step in the right direction. You say: by cutting non-essentials. Good. "under Trump": still good, if facts are as you say. Not sure what "judge teams" and "non-essentials" are but I assume for the moment they are as you say or imply. "...court buildings...far more difficult..." Could be, although I might have thought a cheap single-wide mobile home, or possibly even a well-ventilated tent, to use as a courtroom could be less expensive to bring in than a judge educated and experienced in i*********n l*w.

"Congress...funding": You could be right about how this applies here (though I doubt it) -- I haven't tracked it (and am not sure you have either). Have you thought about what Trump uses most of the funding for, and _why_ and _how_ Congress restricts it? What does Trump _say_ he wants funding for? A border wall. What do we _see_ Trump _doing_ at the border? Militarizing it. How does Trump _describe_ asylum seekers? Does he say, "we need more judges?" I never heard nor read that he said anything of the kind. He does express his usual derogatory insults and stereotypes people at the border in bad ways. Supposing we were to take Trump at his word, we would guess that if anything were done right, at the border, it would have been because he didn't catch it in time. Maybe "Congress", or Democrats and many Republicans in Congress, are rightly suspicious of what Trump would do with increased funding.

Again, about "Congress...funding": Who is the biggest obstructor in all of Congress? Mitch McConnell. What does he obstruct and what does he let pass? (Trump gets a free pass; much from Democrats gets stonewalled -- not even brought up in the Senate -- McConnell's the gatekeeper for a lot of things. He delayed Merrick Garland's hearing for about a year (so that it _never_ occurred), apparently with the idea of stopping an Obama presidency from appointing a Supreme Court judge. It's pretty hard to do anything right in Congress as long as he leads the Senate.)

JoyV

Trump uses the funds allocated by Congress just as they are specified. For example when Congress put a cap how many ICE detention beds would be funded. (And no, Mitch McConnell did not make the rest of congress v**e for funding limitations.) The funding limitations not only meant overcrowding due to congressional cap on beds, it meant keeping up with basic supplies, especially with the influx from the caravans, became very difficult. So Trump took funds already allocated for military drug trafficking prevention and building, and used them for drug trafficking prevention and building on the border. And at the same time reduced the need to lock non violent people in detention by not letting them in until their cases are evaluated.

So just what do you mean by Trump has militarized the border? If you mean he is allowing CBP to apprehend dangerous illegal traffickers again, which Obama restricted when he would not allow any apprehensions within 30 miles of the border unless they were caught in the act of a crime; then yes Trump is guilty of letting them do their job! Trump did not put in the TARS surveillance. That dated to 2014. Both before and during the Trump administration there were armed CBP agents, detention centers, drones, TARS, military grade equipment, and walls. If you mean the use of UNARMED national guard to do some of the clerical ans support work to free up more CBP agents for the border during the caravan crisis, then yes he did so.

If you never heard Trump say we needed more immigration judges, then you weren't listening. He first said so during his campaign.

This was the state of immigration court when Trump was elected. 233 judges. Current figure is 500.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/empty-benches-underfunding-immigration-courts-undermines-justice

You want court held in metal boxes (trailers), or tents IN THE DESERT in triple digit heats!

An immigration judge team is the judge and all the support personnel needed.

JohnCorrespondent

This time I got a little further than one paragraph.

If somebody is murdered by any method, then by all means charge the doer with murder, and go through the appropriate process about it.

The dispute about it is that different kinds of people are not treated equally for the same behaviors.

So, for example, we notice that black people are harassed and k**led more often than non-black people are, even though they did nothing to deserve it. And, for example, we notice, time and again, that some harassers and some murderers or other kinds of k**lers are not charged, or not prosecuted, or not penalized in an appropriate way. We think: Why are so many of these being treated so differently from what we should expect?

Too many of the harassers and k**lers and murderers who are police are not removed from police duty, even when we can see they should be. Not enough happens to fix the situation, even when their crime is egregious. And it's not made a record of; and so some of these k**lers (and harassers) are continually free to do the same again and again as members of police departments.

So it's this unequal treatment, this impunity for some, but mistreatment of others, as identified _classes_ of people (the class of "black" people, the class of "police officers", people seen as not just random individuals but seen correlated as an identified class) seen as systemic repetitive phenomena, which is the issue.

So, for example, too often white and black people are treated differently for the same behaviors. If it were just a few isolated instances then we might overlook it or get past it. But it's not just a few isolated instances; it's systemic. And that is why we come up with words to describe such a thing, such as the word "r****m".

Just a little more, if you've read this far: Some innocent people are treated as guilty, not just as an excusable mistake, but more like they're being judged for their skin color. So, for example there were the five young black males wrongly convicted of rape, and how did that happen? And why? We believe it is r****t stereotyping. I heard that Trump (before he was president, but still, Trump) was saying they should be executed. Trump's way too free with making harmful remarks about people and judging people without knowing much about what he's talking about. He says wrong things about immigrants too. Not that I've done any actual study about _him_ but he's certainly a suspect, at least, for being too r****t; that is, he's probably way too r****t.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Yep!!!
AND; we have fun.
Just for laughs!
Democrat or Republican?
https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/upload/2018/5/10/48785-bmf20.jpg


Woman lets out agonizing screams as Trump is sworn in as President
https://youtu.be/wDYNVH0U3cs

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"You wrote, "Maybe you didn't notice Trump's trash-talking but I and many others have. Some people follow up what Trump says with violence." Can you give examples of what you call Trump's trash talk" - John Cor

Get real. Are you actually trying to say there is a comparison with Rightist violence and L*****t violence in magnitude or anything else.
Trump causes it?
Any examples?