Make America Great Again! wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
That is not true. See Ford's pardon of Nixon. You are simply wrong about this.
What kind of an egotistic a-hole would harp on the point already settled? The Fokus had already admitted his error on the previous page.
Yes, and Smorbun already acknowledged that. Let it go.
Happy Birthday to definitely the most entertaining President in my lifetime!!
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet.
In Atlanta two nights ago, a black man was shot and killed by a white police officer.
The short version of it is that the man was being arrested for DUI. When they started to cuff him he wriggled out. Two white officers and the black suspect wrestled on the ground and the suspect grabbed a cop's taser and fled. As he was running away, the suspect tried to shoot one officer with the taser. The suspect continued to run away. At that point, the other officer fired his gun and killed the suspect.
There are many videos online of this shooting.
Was this shooting justified?
You didn't describe what happened all that well. The victim was running in the opposite direction and could not possibly have hit the officer with the taser. Tasers only fire once, so the officer shot an unarmed man in the back.
Fat hurts wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
This is right. It would be swift.
Technically, it could be swift. But in reality, the whole thing would get quite messy.
Let's say Tiny takes his trip to Turkey seven days before inauguration. He doesn't announce that he's doing this to avoid prosecution and he certainly doesn't declare that he is abdicating the presidency.
To remove him with the 25th amendment, you would have to get the vice president and 13 cabinet members to go along with removal and sign the document. That's not something that's easy to do.
And there would undoubtedly be a court challenge. The 25th amendment says that it can only be invoked when the president "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". The supreme court would probably need to rule if that is the case.
We can disagree on this, but I just don't see it happening quickly.
He's not going to just take a trip to Turkey. Presidential trips are planned weeks to months in advance with people arriving before him, an itinerary set, etc. If he escaped to Turkey, it would be on his own plane or some other private plane that he was given the use of. He wouldn't go there on Air Force One. It would be crystal clear why he fled to Turkey if he indeed does do that. And, I don't think he will. He has never been found guilty of any bad thing he has ever done, so he doesn't think it will happen, and he will just stay here, expecting to live out his life in Florida playing golf at Maralago.
He flees to Turkey, it is immediately apparent, and he will be out on his ear so fast. You can't have a rogue President with power and knowledge of codes and so on holed up in another country. Codes will change, his authority will be gone, and in a matter of hours if not less if he were to do that.
Smorbun wrote:
I think if Trump fled the country while still in office, something would be done, and quickly. I'm not sure what the path would be, but Trump would not remain President for long at all.
The assumption is that he's "fleeing". I don't think it would be presented in that fashion. He could just go to a safe haven as a Presidential trip overseas and stay there through the inauguration and then choose to do what he wants afterwards.
p. n. wrote:
Make America Great Again! wrote:
What kind of an egotistic a-hole would harp on the point already settled? The Fokus had already admitted his error on the previous page.
Yes, and Smorbun already acknowledged that. Let it go.
Yep. Make America Great Again! (Sally) did the same thing I did which was respond to a comment before seeing that the commenter got more information later and either admitted fault (The Fokus) or gave credit (me). The difference is that I was pleasant the whole time, and moron Sally decided to throw a hissy fit. Sally, you are an idiot. Go away.
The Fokus wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
I think if Trump fled the country while still in office, something would be done, and quickly. I'm not sure what the path would be, but Trump would not remain President for long at all.
The assumption is that he's "fleeing". I don't think it would be presented in that fashion. He could just go to a safe haven as a Presidential trip overseas and stay there through the inauguration and then choose to do what he wants afterwards.
He's the commander in chief. If a general abandoned his post, he would immediately be relieved of his duties.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
The assumption is that he's "fleeing". I don't think it would be presented in that fashion. He could just go to a safe haven as a Presidential trip overseas and stay there through the inauguration and then choose to do what he wants afterwards.
He's the commander in chief. If a general abandoned his post, he would immediately be relieved of his duties.
A President taking an overseas trip is not necessarily abandoning his post. This would need to be acknowledged by too many to have any teeth in it.
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet.
In Atlanta two nights ago, a black man was shot and killed by a white police officer.
The short version of it is that the man was being arrested for DUI. When they started to cuff him he wriggled out. Two white officers and the black suspect wrestled on the ground and the suspect grabbed a cop's taser and fled. As he was running away, the suspect tried to shoot one officer with the taser. The suspect continued to run away. At that point, the other officer fired his gun and killed the suspect.
There are many videos online of this shooting.
Was this shooting justified?
I am no lawyer, and it is clear that both officers knew it was a taser he was pointing at them, so from that standpoint it doesn't appear the shooting was justified, but it still is a weapon that can render an officer helpless which would mean he could run back and grab the officer's pistol. Also, at that point they don't know if he has another weapon on him, and he has shown a willingness to point the one he does for sure have at them.
I don't like seeing anyone killed by a police officer, and George Floyd was murdered by that police officer in my opinion, but in the case you are describing, I think the officer who shot him gets off. It's not the same as what Chauvin did. I can't go so far as to condone it or even say it was justified, but I don't think he gets charged criminally.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The Fokus wrote:
The assumption is that he's "fleeing". I don't think it would be presented in that fashion. He could just go to a safe haven as a Presidential trip overseas and stay there through the inauguration and then choose to do what he wants afterwards.
He's the commander in chief. If a general abandoned his post, he would immediately be relieved of his duties.
Yes. This is right. If Trump has lost the election and manages to have a Presidential trip overseas, any odd behavior on his part will be met with great skepticism. He has Security Security detail that is with him at all times. He can't just slink off and people think it's normal. If he is really fleeing, it will be crystal clear that he is doing that. He would be removed swiftly.
Security Security should be Secret Service.
Smorbun wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet.
In Atlanta two nights ago, a black man was shot and killed by a white police officer.
The short version of it is that the man was being arrested for DUI. When they started to cuff him he wriggled out. Two white officers and the black suspect wrestled on the ground and the suspect grabbed a cop's taser and fled. As he was running away, the suspect tried to shoot one officer with the taser. The suspect continued to run away. At that point, the other officer fired his gun and killed the suspect.
There are many videos online of this shooting.
Was this shooting justified?
I am no lawyer, and it is clear that both officers knew it was a taser he was pointing at them, so from that standpoint it doesn't appear the shooting was justified, but it still is a weapon that can render an officer helpless which would mean he could run back and grab the officer's pistol. Also, at that point they don't know if he has another weapon on him, and he has shown a willingness to point the one he does for sure have at them.
I don't like seeing anyone killed by a police officer, and George Floyd was murdered by that police officer in my opinion, but in the case you are describing, I think the officer who shot him gets off. It's not the same as what Chauvin did. I can't go so far as to condone it or even say it was justified, but I don't think he gets charged criminally.
They shot him after he fired and missed with the laser and lasers do not automatically reload.
They absolutely cannot shoot someone in the back just because they think he might be armed. They might as well give them a James Bond "License to kill".
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet.
In Atlanta two nights ago, a black man was shot and killed by a white police officer.
The short version of it is that the man was being arrested for DUI. When they started to cuff him he wriggled out. Two white officers and the black suspect wrestled on the ground and the suspect grabbed a cop's taser and fled. As he was running away, the suspect tried to shoot one officer with the taser. The suspect continued to run away. At that point, the other officer fired his gun and killed the suspect.
There are many videos online of this shooting.
Was this shooting justified?
You didn't describe what happened all that well. The victim was running in the opposite direction and could not possibly have hit the officer with the taser. Tasers only fire once, so the officer shot an unarmed man in the back.
Yes. I knew I couldn't do it justice. I was trying to keep the description short. There are some good articles and videos out there that capture it quite well.
Smorbun wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet.
In Atlanta two nights ago, a black man was shot and killed by a white police officer.
The short version of it is that the man was being arrested for DUI. When they started to cuff him he wriggled out. Two white officers and the black suspect wrestled on the ground and the suspect grabbed a cop's taser and fled. As he was running away, the suspect tried to shoot one officer with the taser. The suspect continued to run away. At that point, the other officer fired his gun and killed the suspect.
There are many videos online of this shooting.
Was this shooting justified?
I am no lawyer, and it is clear that both officers knew it was a taser he was pointing at them, so from that standpoint it doesn't appear the shooting was justified, but it still is a weapon that can render an officer helpless which would mean he could run back and grab the officer's pistol. Also, at that point they don't know if he has another weapon on him, and he has shown a willingness to point the one he does for sure have at them.
I don't like seeing anyone killed by a police officer, and George Floyd was murdered by that police officer in my opinion, but in the case you are describing, I think the officer who shot him gets off. It's not the same as what Chauvin did. I can't go so far as to condone it or even say it was justified, but I don't think he gets charged criminally.
I'm pretty sure the officers knew he did not have another weapon. The video I saw didn't show it, but they had already spent a lot of time talking to him and I assume he had already been frisked.
Smorbun wrote:
1100 wrote:
You are wrong.
Oh wait, you said, "as a physician!" Well, in that case, it's a whole 'nother ballgame! In that case, you are wrong.
I am not wrong. You can suspect. That is why people recommend someone go get evaluated, but you can not tell that this woman is mentally ill. Some people are just a$$holes. Some people just snap when they are angry. We have countless examples of that with famous people who were just entitled and got angry. You are not even a doctor. You can suspect, but you can not diagnose her. Even I would not do that as I am an Oncologist not a Psychiatrist. You are saying you can diagnose someone with a mental illness by watching her for a few seconds on a video. That is patently false.
INCORRECT! (yet again).
If someone is stumbling around, feverish, coughing and in obvious physical pain most people (even non-physicians ;-) are able to correctly conclude that they are physically ill. That does not require an actual diagnosis as to the exact nature of the illness from which the individual suffers. The same is true in this case, anyone with any substantial experience in working with the mentally ill could correctly conclude that that individual is very clearly mentally ill. As with a physical ailment, that does not require an actual diagnosis as to the exact nature of the illness from which the individual suffers.
So, once again you are wrong. Although perhaps I should grant you the level of respect that you so clearly deserve. You are wrong, as a physician.
this is right now three weeks after memorial day...some thought three weeks would be when deaths start rising. That certainly hasn't happened yet. Will this be the week?
An alternate thesis is that memorial day was when the virus was given a foothold...it has been expanding slowly since and now is really starting to take off.
I am not making any guesses.
Fat hurts wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
I am no lawyer, and it is clear that both officers knew it was a taser he was pointing at them, so from that standpoint it doesn't appear the shooting was justified, but it still is a weapon that can render an officer helpless which would mean he could run back and grab the officer's pistol. Also, at that point they don't know if he has another weapon on him, and he has shown a willingness to point the one he does for sure have at them.
I don't like seeing anyone killed by a police officer, and George Floyd was murdered by that police officer in my opinion, but in the case you are describing, I think the officer who shot him gets off. It's not the same as what Chauvin did. I can't go so far as to condone it or even say it was justified, but I don't think he gets charged criminally.
I'm pretty sure the officers knew he did not have another weapon. The video I saw didn't show it, but they had already spent a lot of time talking to him and I assume he had already been frisked.
Yeah...I just saw some more telling videos, including the one where he was already frisked. To you and SDSU Aztec, I have strengthened my stance from just not saying it was justified to saying that officer will probably serve time in prison now for that. Not sure what he thought he could accomplish by running. His car was still there. It appears the police had his ID.
1100 wrote:
Smorbun wrote:
I am not wrong. You can suspect. That is why people recommend someone go get evaluated, but you can not tell that this woman is mentally ill. Some people are just a$$holes. Some people just snap when they are angry. We have countless examples of that with famous people who were just entitled and got angry. You are not even a doctor. You can suspect, but you can not diagnose her. Even I would not do that as I am an Oncologist not a Psychiatrist. You are saying you can diagnose someone with a mental illness by watching her for a few seconds on a video. That is patently false.
INCORRECT! (yet again).
If someone is stumbling around, feverish, coughing and in obvious physical pain most people (even non-physicians ;-) are able to correctly conclude that they are physically ill. That does not require an actual diagnosis as to the exact nature of the illness from which the individual suffers. The same is true in this case, anyone with any substantial experience in working with the mentally ill could correctly conclude that that individual is very clearly mentally ill. As with a physical ailment, that does not require an actual diagnosis as to the exact nature of the illness from which the individual suffers.
So, once again you are wrong. Although perhaps I should grant you the level of respect that you so clearly deserve. You are wrong, as a physician.
There is a difference between seeing that someone is physically ill vs. mentally ill. You are wrong. Grasping at straws with that physically ill thing. You are not right about this. She appears racist. Being racist is not a mental illness.
Smorbun wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet.
In Atlanta two nights ago, a black man was shot and killed by a white police officer.
The short version of it is that the man was being arrested for DUI. When they started to cuff him he wriggled out. Two white officers and the black suspect wrestled on the ground and the suspect grabbed a cop's taser and fled. As he was running away, the suspect tried to shoot one officer with the taser. The suspect continued to run away. At that point, the other officer fired his gun and killed the suspect.
There are many videos online of this shooting.
Was this shooting justified?
I am no lawyer, and it is clear that both officers knew it was a taser he was pointing at them, so from that standpoint it doesn't appear the shooting was justified, but it still is a weapon that can render an officer helpless which would mean he could run back and grab the officer's pistol. Also, at that point they don't know if he has another weapon on him, and he has shown a willingness to point the one he does for sure have at them.
I don't like seeing anyone killed by a police officer, and George Floyd was murdered by that police officer in my opinion, but in the case you are describing, I think the officer who shot him gets off. It's not the same as what Chauvin did. I can't go so far as to condone it or even say it was justified, but I don't think he gets charged criminally.
He will. Wrongful and disproportionate use of deadly force resulting in death isn't a procedural error, it is a criminal act that removes self defense.
America needs herd immunity against the disease that is Republicanism. The cure is an election.