I'll use capital letters.

IF A PERP SHOOTS AT A POLICE OFFICER AND THE OFFICER SHOOTS BACK AND KILLS HIM, IS THAT DUE PROCESS?

To answer your questions:

#1) I am tougher than you because I can gauge by your rhetoric that you are fairly weak minded. Fact that you laud your athletic skills aka Al Bundy, I played high school football is laughable.

#2) I am a better parent because I don't teach my kids drivel such as white privilege and institutional racism. I teach them to treat each person and situation on an individual basis and don't ever bring home a freaking Yankees fan.

#3) I believe we need changes on the border. You don't. But then you complain about how the illegals are treated. Is that not the definition of "idiot"? I never said my suggestions were not radical. I said they were logical.

You are like the ACLU. You would rather live to the letter of the law and see a million people die than use logic and save them.

I will go along with your strawman.

Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says criminologist David Klinger of the University of Missouri St. Louis. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

If police were allowed to shoot willy-nilly, this would be a point for you. But they are only allowed to shoot if someone kills or threatens to kill right in front of them.

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 11:38:00 AM (view original):
I'll use capital letters.

IF A PERP SHOOTS AT A POLICE OFFICER AND THE OFFICER SHOOTS BACK AND KILLS HIM, IS THAT DUE PROCESS?

To answer your questions:

#1) I am tougher than you because I can gauge by your rhetoric that you are fairly weak minded. Fact that you laud your athletic skills aka Al Bundy, I played high school football is laughable.

#2) I am a better parent because I don't teach my kids drivel such as white privilege and institutional racism. I teach them to treat each person and situation on an individual basis and don't ever bring home a freaking Yankees fan.

#3) I believe we need changes on the border. You don't. But then you complain about how the illegals are treated. Is that not the definition of "idiot"? I never said my suggestions were not radical. I said they were logical.

You are like the ACLU. You would rather live to the letter of the law and see a million people die than use logic and save them.

No, that's self defense. The police officer has a right to defend his own life, he isn't administratively waiving due process.

1) Weird.
2) Like how you hope they marry someone of the same race?
3) Wanting changes at the border doesn't require waiving due process.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 11:22:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Wow. CCCP has gone insane. It's funny how he disregards me for wanting to change the electoral college, but now he argues against due process, a basic right in the constitution. Bonkers.

False equivalency yet again. Thanks for playing. When a perp shoots a police officer and he shoots back, is that due process? Y or N?

Answer. Because bad luck refuses to.

I'll give you some sage advice. You want to be a reporter. Listen to the Sunday podcast of Ben Shapiro and Jason Whitlock and let me know your thoughts.

Jesus, you listen to those two idiots? That explains a lot.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how due process protects us and how it only works if it applies to everyone.

The person who doesn't think chasing and apprehending the "alleged" criminal is part of the process keeps claiming someone else doesn't understand it.
Absolutely priceless. They're so cute when they're at that stupidity level.

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Wow. CCCP has gone insane. It's funny how he disregards me for wanting to change the electoral college, but now he argues against due process, a basic right in the constitution. Bonkers.

False equivalency yet again. Thanks for playing. When a perp shoots a police officer and he shoots back, is that due process? Y or N?

Answer. Because bad luck refuses to.

I'll give you some sage advice. You want to be a reporter. Listen to the Sunday podcast of Ben Shapiro and Jason Whitlock and let me know your thoughts.

How is that false equivalency? Both due process and the electoral college are core elements of our republic. To answer your question, no, that is not due process, that is a strawman.

To correct you, I AM a reporter, but I still like hearing differing perspectives. Give me a link to the podcast. IDK what Jason Whitlock has to do with it.

I just wish you would balance out Shapiro with something else in your ear. You are far too one sided and naive on this issue.

#1) False equivalency because I don't want to eliminate due process. I want to give the border patrol more rights to implement it. Sort of how a police officer shoots back at a perp when they try to shoot you. They don't ask for permission they make a call.

#2) https://www.iheart.com/podcast/404-The-Ben-Shapiro-Show-28178102/episode/sunday-special-ep-7-jason-whitlock-29505607/

#3) I listen to ALL perspectives. I actually disagree with Ben on two major points. a) Gun Control b) His Pro Life thinking.

My point is if an illegal is caught red handed crossing the border then they should be sent back immediately.

It is a radical change but the current deterrents are not working. I am happy to hear your thoughts on what changes you would make if any. To me its pretty obvious that currently this is a costly nightmare.

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I will go along with your strawman.

Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says criminologist David Klinger of the University of Missouri St. Louis. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

If police were allowed to shoot willy-nilly, this would be a point for you. But they are only allowed to shoot if someone kills or threatens to kill right in front of them.

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder

Yes. So if the border agent sees people cross right in front of them, why can't they send them back?

Explain.

CCCP, if due process goes, what stops the government from arresting you, me, or anyone else without trial?

When we start using b_l's 99% tax bracket, we'll have plenty of $. ROFLAO

Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2018 11:42:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 11:38:00 AM (view original):
I'll use capital letters.

IF A PERP SHOOTS AT A POLICE OFFICER AND THE OFFICER SHOOTS BACK AND KILLS HIM, IS THAT DUE PROCESS?

To answer your questions:

#1) I am tougher than you because I can gauge by your rhetoric that you are fairly weak minded. Fact that you laud your athletic skills aka Al Bundy, I played high school football is laughable.

#2) I am a better parent because I don't teach my kids drivel such as white privilege and institutional racism. I teach them to treat each person and situation on an individual basis and don't ever bring home a freaking Yankees fan.

#3) I believe we need changes on the border. You don't. But then you complain about how the illegals are treated. Is that not the definition of "idiot"? I never said my suggestions were not radical. I said they were logical.

You are like the ACLU. You would rather live to the letter of the law and see a million people die than use logic and save them.

No, that's self defense. The police officer has a right to defend his own life, he isn't administratively waiving due process.

1) Weird.
2) Like how you hope they marry someone of the same race?
3) Wanting changes at the border doesn't require waiving due process.

So the border agent cannot defend the country from these persons and send them back? Maybe he is defending my life because those people may shoot me? So we DO give the police some wiggle room. Correct?

#1) But True
#2) I never said that. I said my parents wanted me to marry someone Jewish. I didn't for the record. But nice try.
#3) We established that we are not waving it but we are giving border agents more authority.

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:47:00 AM (view original):
CCCP, if due process goes, what stops the government from arresting you, me, or anyone else without trial?

Strawman. I said give agents more authority at the border only. I never said eliminate due process and certainly not for people here legally. LOL. Listen to the podcast and then talk to me.

Posted by all3 on 6/26/2018 11:48:00 AM (view original):
When we start using b_l's 99% tax bracket, we'll have plenty of $. ROFLAO

Oh yeah. LeBron James alone would generate ~$148MM in tax revenue. I am sure he'd be thrilled.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Wow. CCCP has gone insane. It's funny how he disregards me for wanting to change the electoral college, but now he argues against due process, a basic right in the constitution. Bonkers.

False equivalency yet again. Thanks for playing. When a perp shoots a police officer and he shoots back, is that due process? Y or N?

Answer. Because bad luck refuses to.

I'll give you some sage advice. You want to be a reporter. Listen to the Sunday podcast of Ben Shapiro and Jason Whitlock and let me know your thoughts.

How is that false equivalency? Both due process and the electoral college are core elements of our republic. To answer your question, no, that is not due process, that is a strawman.

To correct you, I AM a reporter, but I still like hearing differing perspectives. Give me a link to the podcast. IDK what Jason Whitlock has to do with it.

I just wish you would balance out Shapiro with something else in your ear. You are far too one sided and naive on this issue.

#1) False equivalency because I don't want to eliminate due process. I want to give the border patrol more rights to implement it. Sort of how a police officer shoots back at a perp when they try to shoot you. They don't ask for permission they make a call.

#2) https://www.iheart.com/podcast/404-The-Ben-Shapiro-Show-28178102/episode/sunday-special-ep-7-jason-whitlock-29505607/

#3) I listen to ALL perspectives. I actually disagree with Ben on two major points. a) Gun Control b) His Pro Life thinking.

My point is if an illegal is caught red handed crossing the border then they should be sent back immediately.

It is a radical change but the current deterrents are not working. I am happy to hear your thoughts on what changes you would make if any. To me its pretty obvious that currently this is a costly nightmare.

#1) Specifically what rights?

#2) OK I will take a listen at some point this week. I have a long car drive in 2 days so I will probably do it there.

#3) Yeah but on most other ones you defer to Ben even when you acknowledge that his viewpoint is extremely biased.

I don't see what good that brings. BL and I could list tons of bad things that would happen if your plan was implemented. What does 'caught red handed' mean to you?

I agree with BL. Eliminating DP isn't a deterrent. I don't know a ton about the situation (neither do you) so I don't have all the answers. One thing we could consider is monitoring VISAs to guard against overstays. I disagree that a wall is the answer, although I am not as vehemently against it as others are. I don't think we have to change the constitution or be needlessly cruel to solve the problem.

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):
I will go along with your strawman.

Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says criminologist David Klinger of the University of Missouri St. Louis. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.

If police were allowed to shoot willy-nilly, this would be a point for you. But they are only allowed to shoot if someone kills or threatens to kill right in front of them.

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/michael-brown-case-investigation-legal-police-kill-force-murder

Yes. So if the border agent sees people cross right in front of them, why can't they send them back?

Explain.

Because crossing a border isn't as big a violation as killing someone. There are way more factors that could have gone into it other than just illegal crossing.

A big part of the job of a border agent is helping asylum seekers. If there is no due process, how could it be known who is an asylum seeker and who is an illegal?

BTW, the 'defending from someone potentially shooting you' isn't an argument against illegal immigration, it's an argument against everyone. Maybe we should deport Bracco, he could potentially shoot you, CCCP! Maybe we should deport all3! He could potentially cause danger to some of us!

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 11:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:36:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 6/26/2018 11:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 6/26/2018 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Wow. CCCP has gone insane. It's funny how he disregards me for wanting to change the electoral college, but now he argues against due process, a basic right in the constitution. Bonkers.

False equivalency yet again. Thanks for playing. When a perp shoots a police officer and he shoots back, is that due process? Y or N?

Answer. Because bad luck refuses to.

I'll give you some sage advice. You want to be a reporter. Listen to the Sunday podcast of Ben Shapiro and Jason Whitlock and let me know your thoughts.

How is that false equivalency? Both due process and the electoral college are core elements of our republic. To answer your question, no, that is not due process, that is a strawman.

To correct you, I AM a reporter, but I still like hearing differing perspectives. Give me a link to the podcast. IDK what Jason Whitlock has to do with it.

I just wish you would balance out Shapiro with something else in your ear. You are far too one sided and naive on this issue.

#1) False equivalency because I don't want to eliminate due process. I want to give the border patrol more rights to implement it. Sort of how a police officer shoots back at a perp when they try to shoot you. They don't ask for permission they make a call.

#2) https://www.iheart.com/podcast/404-The-Ben-Shapiro-Show-28178102/episode/sunday-special-ep-7-jason-whitlock-29505607/

#3) I listen to ALL perspectives. I actually disagree with Ben on two major points. a) Gun Control b) His Pro Life thinking.

My point is if an illegal is caught red handed crossing the border then they should be sent back immediately.

It is a radical change but the current deterrents are not working. I am happy to hear your thoughts on what changes you would make if any. To me its pretty obvious that currently this is a costly nightmare.

#1) Specifically what rights?

#2) OK I will take a listen at some point this week. I have a long car drive in 2 days so I will probably do it there.

#3) Yeah but on most other ones you defer to Ben even when you acknowledge that his viewpoint is extremely biased.

I don't see what good that brings. BL and I could list tons of bad things that would happen if your plan was implemented. What does 'caught red handed' mean to you?

I agree with BL. Eliminating DP isn't a deterrent. I don't know a ton about the situation (neither do you) so I don't have all the answers. One thing we could consider is monitoring VISAs to guard against overstays. I disagree that a wall is the answer, although I am not as vehemently against it as others are. I don't think we have to change the constitution or be needlessly cruel to solve the problem.

#1) If they see people crossing aka caught red handed they can send them back and document via video. That is all.

#2) Great. Its an hour and goes by quickly. You will enjoy it I think.

#3) Thats because we share those views. I admit I am biased. I don't hide it.

Whats wrong with the wall then? Mex is certainly not helping in keeping the situation in check.