Police State USA

NDVirginia19

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,420
Reaction score
5,129
ColoradoIrish said:
The national guard should be used in those types of situations. But this goes way further than that. We are now going to have the national government dictating policing policies at the local level.
Click to expand...
"Sec. 4. Using National Security Assets for Law and Order. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the heads of agencies as appropriate, shall increase the provision of excess military and national security assets in local jurisdictions to assist State and local law enforcement.
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime."


It's much more about providing assistance than it is dictating policy. Section B is about figuring out how they can best assist
 
NDVirginia19

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,420
Reaction score
5,129
BuaConstrictor said:
That seems like a pretty big fucking issue.

If any Dem. president did this, the board would (rightfully) explode...but Trump does it (with little clarity) and it's all "wait and see".
Click to expand...
He isn't directing any deployment of troops in this EO. He's directing the DOD and DHS to come up with a plan in 90 days for how they would
 
NDVirginia19

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,420
Reaction score
5,129
It must be so hard to be the smartest man in America and devote your time to spamming the IrishEnvy dot com political boards. Thank you for your service 🫡
 
BuaConstrictor

BuaConstrictor

Well-known member
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,920
NDVirginia19 said:
It must be so hard to be the smartest man in America
Click to expand...
We all have our crosses to bear.

This is the best you have when it's pointed out that you quoted me but didn't respond to anything I actually said?

Stop being a fucking retard and then blaming others for calling it out.
 
NDVirginia19

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,420
Reaction score
5,129
BuaConstrictor said:
We all have our crosses to bear.

This is the best you have when it's pointed out that you quoted me but didn't respond to anything I actually said?

Stop being a fucking retard and then blaming others for calling it out.
Click to expand...
If you can't understand how what I said relates at all to what you said, then maybe you're not as smart as you think you are
 
IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
In America you can charge people with a lack of evidence and keep them locked up for a month+ with no recourse --
 
GATTACA!

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,102
Reaction score
12,935
IrishLax said:
In America you can charge people with a lack of evidence and keep them locked up for a month+ with no recourse --
Click to expand...

The prosecutor is objecting to the defense posting playing the video 🤦🏻‍♂️
 
Last edited:
BuaConstrictor

BuaConstrictor

Well-known member
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,920
GATTACA! said:
The prosecutor is objecting to the defense posting the video 🤦🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
Pretty standard request pre-trial. You want to keep the jury pool impartial as possible.

The charges seem insane but the DA/prosecutors office not wanting evidence shown pre-trial isn't shocking.
 
BuaConstrictor

BuaConstrictor

Well-known member
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,920
drayer54 said:
I would expect virtually anything to be admissible pre-trial. Odd choice.
Click to expand...
It's not really that odd. Her argument, I assume, would be that the video and interpretation of action in the video are a matter for trial and subject to examination and judgement by the jury...not for a bond hearing.

This isn't a defense of charges that seem....really fucking odd....just pointing out that the reasons for objecting to the video being played at a bond hearing...because it is likely the video was already played at a PC hearing/arraignment of some kind.

Here is the full bond hearing for those interested. It's 57min long.
 
BuaConstrictor

BuaConstrictor

Well-known member
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
1,920
BuaConstrictor said:
Her argument, I assume, would be that the video and interpretation of action in the video are a matter for trial and subject to examination and judgement by the jury...not for a bond hearing.
Click to expand...
..and that's exactly what the prosecutor is arguing.
Queued up for time here
 
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,569
Reaction score
20,018
I can see why the prosecutor doesn't want the video admitted. Watching the video, the guy didn't try to run away with the kid and actually walked aside the lady for a couple of feet after handing the kid back to her. Then it shows she backs into a display, so it appears she wasn't real proficient at using the scooter and the kid could have been falling. You can also see there isn't much room for two kids to be riding on it. Nothing there supports his claim.
 
Last edited:
calvegas04

calvegas04

Well-known member
Messages
11,856
Reaction score
8,435
My god, what aim by this deputy. This pisses me off so much as a new father, hope the guy survived.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top