Trump signs police reform executive order in Rose Garden ceremony
Fox News,
by
Tyler Olson
Original Article
Posted By: Moritz55,
6/16/2020 2:52:21 PM
President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order on law enforcement reform and said "chokeholds will be banned except if an officer’s life is at risk" as the nation reels from the death of George Floyd in the custody of the Minneapolis Police Department and the ensuing unrest -- which has sparked calls for changes in policing nationwide as drastic as dismantling entire departments.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
DVC 6/16/2020 2:56:10 PM (No. 446508)
A "chokehold" was no part of the restraint of Mr. Floyd, and played no part in his death. And his death was not caused by any external restriction of his airway.
6 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Clinger 6/16/2020 3:11:19 PM (No. 446529)
I'm not sure what is and isn't a choke hold. If we take any use of the neck in gaining the upper hand on a someone resisting the police, logic tells me that more use of the baton and tazer will follow. I'm OK with that but I'm not so sure the rest of the public is ready for it. You are supposed to guess who you can "take" and who you can't without unauthorized methods? And when isn't an officer's life in harms way when scuffling with a criminal? What may seem like control one second devolves into a life threatening situation in a split second with raging adrenaline on board. Gee I guess I should have used a choke hold too bad I'm dead now.
Reacting to the actions of Derek Chauvin by eliminating choke holds sounds like we are attributing the death of George Floyd to a legitimate method which we needed to de-legitimize. If that was not the case what are we doing tinkering with what here to for have been legitimate methods? Any legitimate method could result in death, where does this stop?
I'm also struggling to see where this is the role of the Federal government. This is an overreach for posturing.
4 people like this.
This is plainly not smart. Trump is now the de facto Police Chief of every department in the United States...implementing nationwide rules for locals. Does this elevate every brutality complaint to DOJ, or just those involving chokeholds? Where are the States Rights advocates now?
5 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
49 Ford 6/16/2020 3:41:20 PM (No. 446564)
I don't know about this. As to the chokehold, at exactly WHAT point in a struggle does an officer's life become endangered? That cannot be objectively measured. This is just more fodder for lawyers. OTOH, I understand why PDT had to get involved and seem concerned.
It's gonna be a long, hot summer.
3 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
2assume 6/16/2020 4:55:14 PM (No. 446656)
I was inspired by President Trumps speech. It was very reasonable appreciative, and respectful of police
2 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
bighambone 6/16/2020 5:56:34 PM (No. 446741)
In the current National situation concerning urban civil unrest also known as rioting, no matter what the President does will be considered controversial and he will be criticized by the leftist and liberal Democrats and their liberal media allies, including those employed by Fox News.
When it comes to so-called qualified immunity, instead of just proposing to remove that legal defense from front line police officers in the inner cities and elsewhere, they should also include federal agents and prosecutors at all levels for fraudulently criminally persecuting innocent people, and maybe members of Congress who keep throwing out libelist statements without any evidence for partisan political purposes. If they did that, the qualified immunity proposal would go down the tubes really fast, you can bet your boots on that.
2 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Geoman 6/16/2020 6:30:57 PM (No. 446765)
President Trump hasn't gotten his own FBI or Intel Community, both clearly his Constitutional responsibility, under effective control. I see no practical value with regard to issuing an executive order intended to dictate state and local LEO's use of force against criminals actively resisting lawful arrest, which appears to be a common thread to the riot-inducing scenarios being inflamed by the media. I guess his political advisors convinced him that he had to be seen as "doing something" that doesn't include advising, admonishing, or educating the criminal class against resisting arrest or committing acts that will get them arrested
0 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
singermom9 6/16/2020 6:39:05 PM (No. 446770)
So funny to me that BLM gets so happy when 1 person gets fired for some inane post or tweet BUT seem fine when large companies, who claim to support them have a SMALL percentage of the business minority workers. Like Google and Apple only have 3% of blacks as employees. Blacks are 13% of the country. Why are BLM happy with 3% job opportunities for blacks. These companies don't really support BLM. They just talk big in support. These BLM and others are getting so TAKEN with these companies.
0 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
EQKimball 6/16/2020 7:38:08 PM (No. 446829)
How is it the President has any jurisdiction to set rules for state and local policing? Perhaps qualifying for federal funds, but otherwise he has no more authority to run police departments than he does to run the DMV.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Moritz55"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)