AndyRM
Elder Goth
There's no evidence of child abuse other than an unsubstantiated and evidence free post from someone on Twitter which has been blindly believed, sadly surprising nobody.
Donald I, emperor of the world.
- Thread starter C R
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
There's no evidence of child abuse other than an unsubstantiated and evidence free post from someone on Twitter which has been blindly believed, sadly surprising nobody.
TailWindHome
Active Member
Pross
Über Member
That was my first thought on the last paragraph although to be fair the US also go to other countries rather than just kidnapping people they don’t like in their own country.
TailWindHome
Active Member
Standard issue justification for state violence.
Pinno718
Guru
Well that went well Donnie.
Only 5 days into regime change and...
Is he spouting sh*t that he heard from x, y and z and then acting on it?
Hypothetically - he hears that Greenland has got lot of resources from a bloke like Musk and...
We know he was bereft of policy and got his son to l'ook for stuff'. His son found an 'expert' on tariffs and then Trump started running some of his 2016 campaign on it from 2012 onwards. Turns out, the 'expert' was some 2nd rate economist who wrote a book on tariffs.
So to clarify: Trump the narcissist wants to be president. However, he is a property developer/mobster with very sketchy business acumen but sufficient acumen to screw the system, declare bankruptcy at the right point to avoid personal loss (mobster tactics). Despite this, he successfully built up links with people with money and power (and Russians) and through that, Epstein (who was weaving his wonderful web) facilitated connections and was probably where Trump's got an inkling of stepping into politics(?).
He acts like a mobster with his vendetta's and his vengeance and disregard for the law in whatever from - domestic to international.
High on power, he seizes the opportunity to cash in. Well, that's what a mobster does isn't it? He's only there to be Al Capone and make money. He left after his first term stating to Wolf 'I left cash on the table'.
(...and he throws a 1920's style party. The peak of the mobster era, fuelled by prohibition).
The problem is that this mobster bloke is facilitating the backroom fascist boys agenda. Donnie is a clock work toy that will provide continuous and uninterrupted distraction to a far more insidious agenda.
briantrumpet
Pharaoh
That's about it. He's now high on being a warlord, and wants more. A dementia mobster with nuclear weapons being manipulated by fascists. What could possibly go wrong?
Pinno718
Guru
There is 0 justification for some of his comments. What he has said (I haven't even read them but I have seen the responses to work it out) means that morally, he is in a now win situation. If he's trolling this sh*t, he's a reprehensible c*nt. If he's not trolling, he's reprehensible c*nt.
Pinno718
Guru
But there is no depth and no realistic long term thought behind his actions. Which means we can hope that these actions result in quick failure. As I have said, more competent administrations have failed to occupy/take over innumerable countries.
I can also hope that the malicious incompetents installed to roll out Project 2025 will stumble.
Miller and Vance are simply vessels. VD is a snake who once said he would "...rather hold his nose and vote for [Hilary] Clinton than vote for Trump. Trump doesn't care about the people".
Miller was this oddball college student who has been promoted (by the likes of Thiel). High on power and fascistic tendencies and severely lacking an ounce of humanity. Like a morally bereft adolescent with a political idea in his head. Oh and look - I can evoke a reaction and now, I can act on a reaction.
To me, Project2025 is the representable face of the Technocratic ambitions of the tech billionaires.
Blazing Saddles
Active Member
I take it that folks have seen the Slovenian magazines front cover that is receiving bigly beautiful praise?
If not…
If not…
AndyRM
Elder Goth
Tomato Kosir is the name of the designer. He's excellent, and has form for clever political work.
https://tomatokosir.com/
Pinno718
Guru
State prosecutors will seek investigation and trial of ICE shooter in MIniapolis (Washington Post).
A judge will decide to defer to the WH administration but does not have to as the laws on an investigation are 'co-current' which means that the WH (who attempted to 'pre-clear' any possible investigation with Noem's and VD's immediate response) does not have the legal authority.
This will be a state held prosecution using state lawyers and state judges which cannot be given immunity by the president as there is no legal precedent. The administration does not have legal precedent over the state law in this matter. It is co-current.
A judge will decide to defer to the WH administration but does not have to as the laws on an investigation are 'co-current' which means that the WH (who attempted to 'pre-clear' any possible investigation with Noem's and VD's immediate response) does not have the legal authority.
This will be a state held prosecution using state lawyers and state judges which cannot be given immunity by the president as there is no legal precedent. The administration does not have legal precedent over the state law in this matter. It is co-current.
CXRAndy
Epic Member
Tennessee V Garner, re affirmed Barnes case 2025
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly limited when police officers can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.
Key Facts of the Case
On October 3, 1974, in Memphis, Tennessee, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home. Officer Elton Hymon spotted 15-year-old Edward Garner fleeing across the backyard toward a 6-foot chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands and believed he was unarmed (and of slight build, posing no apparent threat). After shouting "police, halt," Garner began climbing the fence to escape. Hymon fired a single shot, striking Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital but died shortly after. Police found only $10 and a purse stolen from the house on his body.
Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police Department policy) that allowed officers to use "all necessary means" to effect an arrest if a suspect flees or resists after notice of intent to arrest. This reflected the old common-law "fleeing felon rule," which permitted deadly force against any fleeing felony suspect.
Garner's father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against the officer, the city, and others, claiming the shooting violated Garner's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.
Lower courts initially upheld the statute, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding it unconstitutional as applied.
Supreme Court Decision (March 27, 1985)
In a 6-3 ruling written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court held that:
The use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect constitutes a "seizure" subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
A Tennessee statute (and similar laws) is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.
Deadly force may only be used to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Court reasoned that deadly force is the most severe intrusion on a person's rights (implicating the fundamental interest in life), and the government's interest in preventing escape does not justify it absent a real threat. The old common-law rule was outdated in modern times, where many felonies are non-violent, firearms make arrests riskier, and death penalties are reserved for the most serious crimes. The Court noted that many jurisdictions had already restricted such force, and empirical data showed little public safety benefit from shooting non-violent fleeing suspects.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on liability (e.g., of the city).
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist), arguing that officers often make split-second decisions, burglary is inherently dangerous (with potential for violence), and legislatures should set the rules rather than courts.
Lasting Impact
This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time).
As of 2026, Tennessee v. Garner remains a foundational precedent in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and police accountability discussions, particularly in debates over excessive force and officer-involved shootings. It continues to influence training, policies, and court rulings nationwide.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly limited when police officers can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.
Key Facts of the Case
On October 3, 1974, in Memphis, Tennessee, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home. Officer Elton Hymon spotted 15-year-old Edward Garner fleeing across the backyard toward a 6-foot chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands and believed he was unarmed (and of slight build, posing no apparent threat). After shouting "police, halt," Garner began climbing the fence to escape. Hymon fired a single shot, striking Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital but died shortly after. Police found only $10 and a purse stolen from the house on his body.
Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police Department policy) that allowed officers to use "all necessary means" to effect an arrest if a suspect flees or resists after notice of intent to arrest. This reflected the old common-law "fleeing felon rule," which permitted deadly force against any fleeing felony suspect.
Garner's father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against the officer, the city, and others, claiming the shooting violated Garner's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.
Lower courts initially upheld the statute, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding it unconstitutional as applied.
Supreme Court Decision (March 27, 1985)
In a 6-3 ruling written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court held that:
The use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect constitutes a "seizure" subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
A Tennessee statute (and similar laws) is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.
Deadly force may only be used to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Court reasoned that deadly force is the most severe intrusion on a person's rights (implicating the fundamental interest in life), and the government's interest in preventing escape does not justify it absent a real threat. The old common-law rule was outdated in modern times, where many felonies are non-violent, firearms make arrests riskier, and death penalties are reserved for the most serious crimes. The Court noted that many jurisdictions had already restricted such force, and empirical data showed little public safety benefit from shooting non-violent fleeing suspects.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on liability (e.g., of the city).
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist), arguing that officers often make split-second decisions, burglary is inherently dangerous (with potential for violence), and legislatures should set the rules rather than courts.
Lasting Impact
This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time).
As of 2026, Tennessee v. Garner remains a foundational precedent in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and police accountability discussions, particularly in debates over excessive force and officer-involved shootings. It continues to influence training, policies, and court rulings nationwide.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly limited when police officers can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.
Key Facts of the Case
On October 3, 1974, in Memphis, Tennessee, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home. Officer Elton Hymon spotted 15-year-old Edward Garner fleeing across the backyard toward a 6-foot chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands and believed he was unarmed (and of slight build, posing no apparent threat). After shouting "police, halt," Garner began climbing the fence to escape. Hymon fired a single shot, striking Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital but died shortly after. Police found only $10 and a purse stolen from the house on his body.
Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police Department policy) that allowed officers to use "all necessary means" to effect an arrest if a suspect flees or resists after notice of intent to arrest. This reflected the old common-law "fleeing felon rule," which permitted deadly force against any fleeing felony suspect.
Garner's father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against the officer, the city, and others, claiming the shooting violated Garner's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.
Lower courts initially upheld the statute, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding it unconstitutional as applied.
Supreme Court Decision (March 27, 1985)
In a 6-3 ruling written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court held that:
The use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect constitutes a "seizure" subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
A Tennessee statute (and similar laws) is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.
Deadly force may only be used to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Court reasoned that deadly force is the most severe intrusion on a person's rights (implicating the fundamental interest in life), and the government's interest in preventing escape does not justify it absent a real threat. The old common-law rule was outdated in modern times, where many felonies are non-violent, firearms make arrests riskier, and death penalties are reserved for the most serious crimes. The Court noted that many jurisdictions had already restricted such force, and empirical data showed little public safety benefit from shooting non-violent fleeing suspects.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on liability (e.g., of the city).
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist), arguing that officers often make split-second decisions, burglary is inherently dangerous (with potential for violence), and legislatures should set the rules rather than courts.
Lasting Impact
This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time).
As of 2026, Tennessee v. Garner remains a foundational precedent in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and police accountability discussions, particularly in debates over excessive force and officer-involved shootings. It continues to influence training, policies, and court rulings nationwide.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly limited when police officers can use deadly force against a fleeing suspect.
Key Facts of the Case
On October 3, 1974, in Memphis, Tennessee, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home. Officer Elton Hymon spotted 15-year-old Edward Garner fleeing across the backyard toward a 6-foot chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands and believed he was unarmed (and of slight build, posing no apparent threat). After shouting "police, halt," Garner began climbing the fence to escape. Hymon fired a single shot, striking Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken to a hospital but died shortly after. Police found only $10 and a purse stolen from the house on his body.
Hymon acted under a Tennessee statute (and Memphis Police Department policy) that allowed officers to use "all necessary means" to effect an arrest if a suspect flees or resists after notice of intent to arrest. This reflected the old common-law "fleeing felon rule," which permitted deadly force against any fleeing felony suspect.
Garner's father filed a federal civil rights lawsuit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against the officer, the city, and others, claiming the shooting violated Garner's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures.
Lower courts initially upheld the statute, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding it unconstitutional as applied.
Supreme Court Decision (March 27, 1985)
In a 6-3 ruling written by Justice Byron White, the Supreme Court held that:
The use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect constitutes a "seizure" subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement of reasonableness.
A Tennessee statute (and similar laws) is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes deadly force against an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect.
Deadly force may only be used to prevent escape when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
The Court reasoned that deadly force is the most severe intrusion on a person's rights (implicating the fundamental interest in life), and the government's interest in preventing escape does not justify it absent a real threat. The old common-law rule was outdated in modern times, where many felonies are non-violent, firearms make arrests riskier, and death penalties are reserved for the most serious crimes. The Court noted that many jurisdictions had already restricted such force, and empirical data showed little public safety benefit from shooting non-violent fleeing suspects.
The case was remanded for further proceedings on liability (e.g., of the city).
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented (joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist), arguing that officers often make split-second decisions, burglary is inherently dangerous (with potential for violence), and legislatures should set the rules rather than courts.
Lasting Impact
This decision ended the broad "fleeing felon rule" in the U.S. and forced many states and police departments to revise policies on deadly force. It has been cited in countless use-of-force cases and is often paired with Graham v. Connor (1989), which established the "objective reasonableness" standard for all police force (judged from the officer's perspective at the time).
As of 2026, Tennessee v. Garner remains a foundational precedent in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and police accountability discussions, particularly in debates over excessive force and officer-involved shootings. It continues to influence training, policies, and court rulings nationwide.
Last edited:
Pblakeney
Guru
CXRAndy
Epic Member
Not a hope or a prayer it will result in a conviction
