https://vdare.com/articles/ann-coult...to_paragraph=1

To use the cliche of the moment, these are deeply polarized times. But
there are some issues so urgent that we must find common ground. At
the top of that list is preventing police-citizen interactions from
resulting in the deaths of either innocent civilians or dedicated
police officers.

Unsurprisingly, Joe Biden’s Justice Department is now signaling its
intent to address this problem in the time-honored Democrat way—by
“investigating” local police departments, so it can then announce the
foregone conclusion that “systemic racism” abounds.

The next step in that playbook is a “Consent Decree,” where local
police departments, under threat of crippling and endless Dickensian
litigation, agree to hand over their keys to the feds. And yes, this
nifty move is executed under color of law, though it’s not entirely
different in spirit from the way Captain Phillips lost control of his
container ship on the high seas, if you happened to catch the Tom
Hanks movie.

Conservatives are girding for battle. In the past, Consent Decrees
have been used to kneecap police departments, compelling them to waste
millions of dollars on paperwork, and focus on concerns notable for
not being “Keeping the Public Safe.”

Maybe in the interest of comity, we shouldn’t abandon Consent Decrees
so fast. So here’s my stab at one. Below, I have enumerated 16 bullet
points that I believe we can all agree on.

When motorists see flashing police lights behind them, they consent to
pull over. (See what I mean? Nothing but common sense!) Upon being
asked for their license and registration, drivers will consent to
produce those documents and not to fight with the officer, drive off
or reach for a gun. (Again: comity!) As a general rule, it is
advisable that drivers not engage in a game of Do I have a gun—or is
it a cellphone? with the officers, but when asked to show their hands
… well, I guess you’d say, “consent.” (Beginning to see the pattern?)
For citizens holding the drug money for a major fentanyl ring in
Louisville, Kentucky, if the police knock on your door at midnight,
you consent not to shoot at the officers, but to open the door and
say, “Yes, may I help you?” (Observation will reveal that this point
cannot fail to produce the safe policing that we all desire.) In fact,
in any door-knock situation, you consent not to shoot at the police.
We may further strike the “in a door-knock situation” from that last
point. In all circumstances, anywhere, anytime, citizens consent not
to shoot at police officers. While it is preferable that assailants
not burst from their homes carrying 8-inch knives and screaming, “I’m
gonna stab the f*ck out of you,” when those circumstances arise, and
responding officers have requested that the knife be put down just
prior to the actual stabbing commencing, the assailant will consent.
(This will be music to #BlackLivesMatter’s ears, inasmuch as they
believe that, you know, black lives matter.) When sprinting through an
alley at 2:30 in the morning holding a recently fired gun, with police
in hot pursuit demanding that the suspect stop, the fleeing suspect
will consent to stop. If a further request is made that the suspect
drop the gun, the fleeing suspect will provide his consent. (Police
officers tend to be very strict about this sort of thing.) Consent
similarly will be given when a police officer directs pedestrians
strolling in the middle of a street to use the sidewalk. Middle-of-
the-street pedestrians will consent not to punch the officer or try to
steal his gun. Citizens will additionally consent not to turn and
charge at the officer. When picking up children from a woman who has a
restraining order against you and has just called the police on you,
and the responding officers order you to drop a knife, you will
consent to drop the knife. If the officers ask you to stop walking
around the car, do not keep walking, do not open the car door and do
not reach inside for something out of sight of the officers. Instead,
you will consent to stop. In parked-car scenarios, when you’ve just
passed a counterfeit bill and ingested several speedballs, and a
policeman asks to see your hands, consent to show your hands. It is
especially important to consent when officers ask you to climb into
the back of a police van and not to fight with them.

A Consent Decree for our times! And as you can see, these 16 points
are the very definition of unifying, hands-across-the-ocean, common-
sense proposals. If we as a country can agree to these simple rules,
maybe this will light the way forward on other contentious issue.

But let’s start here, because brave cops deserve to be protected. And
because black lives matter.

COPYRIGHT 2020 ANN COULTER

On Sun, 9 May 2021 02:45:07 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKF4Z36hyQ

Nomen Nescio wrote

https://vdare.com/articles/ann-coult...to_paragraph=1

To use the cliche of the moment, these are deeply polarized times.

No more so than during the civil war or vietnam.

But there are some issues so urgent that we must find common ground.

That isnt even possible with this issue.

At the top of that list is preventing police-citizen interactions
from resulting in the deaths of either innocent civilians

Trivially avoided by doing what the cops tell you to do, even if you
don’t see that what the cops tell you to do is acceptable to you.

or dedicated police officers.

Nothing will fix that, not even banning guns entirely which isnt even
possible.

Unsurprisingly, Joe Biden’s Justice Department is now signaling
its intent to address this problem in the time-honored Democrat
way—by “investigating” local police departments, so it can then
announce the foregone conclusion that “systemic racism” abounds.

Corse it does, and always will do. Nothing will fix that.

reams of even sillier Coulter **** flushed where it belongs

On Sun, 9 May 2021 11:28:13 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll****

Teaching the Yanks again how politics REALLY work in the US, you abnormal
trolling senile cretin from Oz? BG

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 7:46:32 PM UTC-5, Nomen Nescio wrote:
https://vdare.com/articles/ann-coult...to_paragraph=1


These darn police officers keep shooting Black men who punch them, fight with them, reach for weapons, fail to follow simple commands, attempt to flee, refuse to keep their hands visible, resist arrest... etc, etc...

It's an outrage!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKF4Z36hyQ

On 5/9/2021 12:42 AM, MikeJ wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote in
:



Thank you, Nomen, for the article. I haven't heard or seen anything from
Ann in a while, but I haven't been looking, either.

Do you know who you are thanking? There is no Nomen Nescio as it is an
anonymous mailer for people that don't have the balls to be traced. Not
a trusted source of anything.

On 5/9/21 1:41 PM, Davej wrote:
On Saturday, May 8, 2021 at 7:46:32 PM UTC-5, Nomen Nescio wrote:
https://vdare.com/articles/ann-coult...to_paragraph=1


These darn police officers keep shooting Black men who punch them, fight with them, reach for weapons, fail to follow simple commands, attempt to flee, refuse to keep their hands visible, resist arrest... etc, etc...

It's an outrage!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8



I was never a big fan of Chris Rock - in his early days ..
... his delivery put me off .
... later on, as he became famous, his irreverence -
in the face of power - won me over.

I'm not sure when this video was made 2007 on youtube
but the satire seems lost here in alt home repair ?

.... also - police using nightsticks on black perps ? really ?
... more like shoot first .. get that notch on your gun.
John T.

On 05/08/2021 10:42 PM, MikeJ wrote:
So, can anyone say what's wrong with Ann's points of concession, other
than give an emotional response? What would happen if everyone did what
the police asked? That is, not pull a gun, not run, not go back to their
car and reach into it, not pull a knife, not start a car chase, etc.?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

It's sad when a comedian is more grounded in reality that BLM and the
Biden administration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

It's sad when a comedian is more grounded in reality that BLM and the
Biden administration.


Chris Rock is your White Lives Matter spokesman ?

OK Duh ..

John T.

On 05/09/2021 06:23 PM, wrote:
... also - police using nightsticks on black perps ? really ?
.. more like shoot first .. get that notch on your gun.

A lot of trouble would have been avoided had they shot Rodney king.

On 05/09/2021 07:11 PM, wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

It's sad when a comedian is more grounded in reality that BLM and the
Biden administration.


Chris Rock is your White Lives Matter spokesman ?

OK Duh ..

John T.



What possible convoluted logic lead you to that conclusion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYqHBr9qSv8

What could be better than Rock talking to Ellen Degenerate? However is
there anything in Rock's comedy skit which is not true?

On Sun, 9 May 2021 19:04:49 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

It's sad when a comedian is more grounded in reality that BLM and the
Biden administration.

There's no comedian like Trump and his trumptards, trumptard! LOL

On Sun, 9 May 2021 21:51:14 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:


What possible convoluted logic lead you to that conclusion?

"Convoluted logic"? LOL What a verbose bigmouth you truly are, gossip girl!

On Sun, 9 May 2021 21:41:20 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

On 05/09/2021 06:23 PM, wrote:
... also - police using nightsticks on black perps ? really ?
.. more like shoot first .. get that notch on your gun.

A lot of trouble would have been avoided had they shot Rodney king.

Wow, what a tough gossip you are, gossip girl! BG

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On 5/9/2021 12:42 AM, MikeJ wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote in
:



Thank you, Nomen, for the article. I haven't heard or seen anything
from Ann in a while, but I haven't been looking, either.

Do you know who you are thanking? There is no Nomen Nescio as it is
an anonymous mailer for people that don't have the balls to be traced.
Not a trusted source of anything.

All you are doing is killing the messenger.

And all everyone else here is doing is pointing to youtube comedy
sketches. Cute, but non-responsive.

No one ever wants to answer rationally. I'll ask again

"So, can anyone say what's wrong with Ann's points of concession, other
than give an emotional response? What would happen if everyone did what
the police asked? That is, not pull a gun, not run, not go back to their
car and reach into it, not pull a knife, not start a car chase, etc.?"

On 5/10/2021 1:53 PM, MikeJ wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On 5/9/2021 12:42 AM, MikeJ wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote in
:



Thank you, Nomen, for the article. I haven't heard or seen anything
from Ann in a while, but I haven't been looking, either.

Do you know who you are thanking? There is no Nomen Nescio as it is
an anonymous mailer for people that don't have the balls to be traced.
Not a trusted source of anything.

All you are doing is killing the messenger.

And all everyone else here is doing is pointing to youtube comedy
sketches. Cute, but non-responsive.

No one ever wants to answer rationally. I'll ask again

"So, can anyone say what's wrong with Ann's points of concession, other
than give an emotional response? What would happen if everyone did what
the police asked? That is, not pull a gun, not run, not go back to their
car and reach into it, not pull a knife, not start a car chase, etc.?"

In my opinion, what's wrong with her statement is that it is too much of
a generalization. There are explicit situations where early deployment
of the police and their early use of deadly force can arguably be
justified, such as (1) when the suspect/perp is placing other lives in
immediate danger - whether the target(s) might be civilian or other law
enforcement is irrelevant, and (2) the suspect/perp is an escaped
prisoner who was already convicted of a capital offense. As I write
this, I'm unable to come up with any additional examples. My feeling is
that barring those two circumstances, no officer of the court should
have the right to use deadly force.

If someone who the police wish to detain in any other scenario than what
I've mentioned above attempts to escape an attempted detention, the
police should either attempt to restrain them by threatening/using only
non-lethal force or allow the perp/suspect to escape rather than
potentially provoke actions that might cause injuries or death
disproportionate to the alleged offense that justified the initial
detention (such as driving off and injuring/killing innocent people with
their vehicle).

As an aside, I don't agree with the use of immediate lethal force even
if the suspect/perp was directly observed by officers of the court
committing a capital offense but isn't threatening anyone else. The
suspect/perp has a right to claim self-defense or insanity and the
proper disposition of that situation is the role of the courts. The
police shouldn't act as judge, jury and executioner.

On 5/10/2021 2:45 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:
On 5/10/2021 1:53 PM, MikeJ wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On 5/9/2021 12:42 AM, MikeJ wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote in
:



Thank you, Nomen, for the article.* I haven't heard or seen anything
from Ann in a while, but I haven't been looking, either.

Do you know who you are thanking?* There is no Nomen Nescio as it is
an anonymous mailer for people that don't have the balls to be traced.
* Not a trusted source of anything.

All you are doing is killing the messenger.

And all everyone else here is doing is pointing to youtube comedy
sketches.* Cute, but non-responsive.

No one ever wants to answer rationally.* I'll ask again

"So, can anyone say what's wrong with Ann's points of concession, other
than give an emotional response?* What would happen if everyone did what
the police asked?* That is, not pull a gun, not run, not go back to their
car and reach into it, not pull a knife, not start a car chase, etc.?"

In my opinion, what's wrong with her statement is that it is too much of
a generalization.* There are explicit situations where early deployment
of the police and their early use of deadly force can arguably be
justified, such as (1) when the suspect/perp is placing other lives in
immediate danger - whether the target(s) might be civilian or other law
enforcement is irrelevant, and (2) the suspect/perp is an escaped
prisoner who was already convicted of a capital offense. As I write
this, I'm unable to come up with any additional examples.* My feeling is
that barring those two circumstances, no officer of the court should
have the right to use deadly force.

If someone who the police wish to detain in any other scenario than what
I've mentioned above attempts to escape an attempted detention, the
police should either attempt to restrain them by threatening/using only
non-lethal force or allow the perp/suspect to escape rather than
potentially provoke actions that might cause injuries or death
disproportionate to the alleged offense that justified the initial
detention (such as driving off and injuring/killing innocent people with
their vehicle).

As an aside, I don't agree with the use of immediate lethal force even
if the suspect/perp was directly observed by officers of the court
committing a capital offense but isn't threatening anyone else.* The
suspect/perp has a right to claim self-defense or insanity and the
proper disposition of that situation is the role of the courts. The
police shouldn't act as judge, jury and executioner.

Yes, it is a generalization but in many cases it would work. Have you
ever watched Live PD when it was on? Many people when stopped would get
rather defensive, or take off, or behave in a rather difficult manner.
Simple traffic stops become felonies or they fight and get tased.

Sitting here at our keyboards it is easy to say what "should" be done
but in the field there is often a split second to react and perhaps save
your life or others.

Sure, there are bad cops but there are many people acting bad when a
little patience and politeness can be a big help. It should not be as
hard as it is.

The police should not act as judge, jury and executioner but they may if
you point a gun at them.

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 5/10/2021 2:45 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:


As an aside, I don't agree with the use of immediate lethal force even
if the suspect/perp was directly observed by officers of the court
committing a capital offense but isn't threatening anyone else.* The
suspect/perp has a right to claim self-defense or insanity and the
proper disposition of that situation is the role of the courts. The
police shouldn't act as judge, jury and executioner.

Yes, it is a generalization but in many cases it would work. Have you
ever watched Live PD when it was on?

Do you realize that "Live PD" is a TV show, and doesn't bear
any relationship to real policing or real life. Real life would be far
too boring for the type of people who watch that type of mindless
programming.

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 5/10/2021 2:45 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:


As an aside, I don't agree with the use of immediate lethal force even
if the suspect/perp was directly observed by officers of the court
committing a capital offense but isn't threatening anyone else. The
suspect/perp has a right to claim self-defense or insanity and the
proper disposition of that situation is the role of the courts. The
police shouldn't act as judge, jury and executioner.

Yes, it is a generalization but in many cases it would work. Have you
ever watched Live PD when it was on?

Do you realize that "Live PD" is a TV show,

Yes.

and doesn't bear any relationship to real policing or real life.

Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_PD
It follows actual cops doing their job.

Sure, it would certainly be selective about what it
shows but what it showed did happen in real life.

Real life would be far too boring for the type of people
who watch that type of mindless programming.

That’s why they only show the more interesting events that did happen.

And it isnt mindless programming either.

On 5/10/2021 6:51 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 5/10/2021 2:45 PM, Retirednoguilt wrote:


As an aside, I don't agree with the use of immediate lethal force even
if the suspect/perp was directly observed by officers of the court
committing a capital offense but isn't threatening anyone else.Â* The
suspect/perp has a right to claim self-defense or insanity and the
proper disposition of that situation is the role of the courts. The
police shouldn't act as judge, jury and executioner.

Yes, it is a generalization but in many cases it would work. Have you
ever watched Live PD when it was on?

Do you realize that "Live PD" is a TV show, and doesn't bear
any relationship to real policing or real life. Real life would be far
too boring for the type of people who watch that type of mindless
programming.

Sure it is TV but taken in real life situations. I have relatives and a
couple of friends that are police and they run into similar situations
on a regular basis. Those situations do occur every day.

On Tue, 11 May 2021 09:07:35 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: