Billy Prempeh: Unlike BLM, I Am Running For Congress to Actually Help Protect Black Lives By Supporting Our Police

[basquebromance]

Billy Prempeh: Unlike BLM, I Am Running For Congress to Actually Help Protect Black Lives By Supporting Our Police | The Gateway Pundit | by Assistant Editor

Exclusive guest op-ed from New Jersey congressional candidate William “Billy” Prempeh: My name is William “Billy” Prempeh and I’ve decided to step up for the people of the 9th congressional district — because unlike Black Lives Matter, I will actually work to get justice and change the culture...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

he has my vote!

 

[pknopp]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

 

[Correll]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

 

[pknopp]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

 

[EMH]

Always great to see courage and truth shoved in the face of bigoted mass fraud....

 

[Correll]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

 

[pknopp]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

Our civil rights have long been established. No one is denying that they are violated. The argument is that we will not hold the police accountable for violating them. When one group is shown to be above the law there really is no legitimate law.

Again, your argument is that unless we allow the police to violate our rights we can not have a police force. OK, then that will be it.

 

[Correll]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

Our civil rights have long been established. No one is denying that they are violated. The argument is that we will not hold the police accountable for violating them. When one group is shown to be above the law there really is no legitimate law.

Again, your argument is that unless we allow the police to violate our rights we can not have a police force. OK, then that will be it.

Cops are still accountable. Plenty of cops are arrested for crimes.

 

[pknopp]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

Our civil rights have long been established. No one is denying that they are violated. The argument is that we will not hold the police accountable for violating them. When one group is shown to be above the law there really is no legitimate law.

Again, your argument is that unless we allow the police to violate our rights we can not have a police force. OK, then that will be it.

Cops are still accountable. Plenty of cops are arrested for crimes.

On occasion but yeah, that is changing. It's also only a matter of time before the Supreme Court throws out Qualified Immunity.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

Our civil rights have long been established. No one is denying that they are violated. The argument is that we will not hold the police accountable for violating them. When one group is shown to be above the law there really is no legitimate law.

Again, your argument is that unless we allow the police to violate our rights we can not have a police force. OK, then that will be it.

I will be the first to condemn police violating rights. You know me. I hate that statist shit.

But, were is the line? What is expected? We have to decide what role police will have and how they go about it.

Maybe it's because of racial stereotypes, but I have never had a bad experience with police. Of course, I have never treated them with contempt or been hostile during any interaction.

Is there a racial stereotype that we need to overcome? YES. Can we do it when those of that stereotyped group constantly treat police officers with hostility and contempt? NO!!!

 

[pknopp]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

Our civil rights have long been established. No one is denying that they are violated. The argument is that we will not hold the police accountable for violating them. When one group is shown to be above the law there really is no legitimate law.

Again, your argument is that unless we allow the police to violate our rights we can not have a police force. OK, then that will be it.

I will be the first to condemn police violating rights. You know me. I hate that statist shit.

But, were is the line? What is expected? We have to decide what role police will have and how they go about it.

Maybe it's because of racial stereotypes, but I have never had a bad experience with police. Of course, I have never treated them with contempt or been hostile during any interaction.

Is there a racial stereotype that we need to overcome? YES. Can we do it when those of that stereotyped group constantly treat police officers with hostility and contempt? NO!!!

They aren't allowed to violate our civil rights should be an easy, clear line. They should be held accountable when they do.

Why should it be on the taxpayers to pay for that as opposed to the one who did it? Do we not really, actually believe in personal responsibility?

 

[Correll]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

Our civil rights have long been established. No one is denying that they are violated. The argument is that we will not hold the police accountable for violating them. When one group is shown to be above the law there really is no legitimate law.

Again, your argument is that unless we allow the police to violate our rights we can not have a police force. OK, then that will be it.

Cops are still accountable. Plenty of cops are arrested for crimes.

On occasion but yeah, that is changing. It's also only a matter of time before the Supreme Court throws out Qualified Immunity.

Which would be good. But to really explore this path, we need real defund, in at least 4 or 5 cities, so we can get a good feel for how well this policy works.

 

[pknopp]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

Our civil rights have long been established. No one is denying that they are violated. The argument is that we will not hold the police accountable for violating them. When one group is shown to be above the law there really is no legitimate law.

Again, your argument is that unless we allow the police to violate our rights we can not have a police force. OK, then that will be it.

Cops are still accountable. Plenty of cops are arrested for crimes.

On occasion but yeah, that is changing. It's also only a matter of time before the Supreme Court throws out Qualified Immunity.

Which would be good. But to really explore this path, we need real defund, in at least 4 or 5 cities, so we can get a good feel for how well this policy works.

We have it. Despite your false claims, there is still a police force.

You never did answer my question as to why you support the idea of a representative of the government to violate our rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

Our civil rights have long been established. No one is denying that they are violated. The argument is that we will not hold the police accountable for violating them. When one group is shown to be above the law there really is no legitimate law.

Again, your argument is that unless we allow the police to violate our rights we can not have a police force. OK, then that will be it.

I will be the first to condemn police violating rights. You know me. I hate that statist shit.

But, were is the line? What is expected? We have to decide what role police will have and how they go about it.

Maybe it's because of racial stereotypes, but I have never had a bad experience with police. Of course, I have never treated them with contempt or been hostile during any interaction.

Is there a racial stereotype that we need to overcome? YES. Can we do it when those of that stereotyped group constantly treat police officers with hostility and contempt? NO!!!

They aren't allowed to violate our civil rights should be an easy, clear line. They should be held accountable when they do.

Why should it be on the taxpayers to pay for that as opposed to the one who did it? Do we not really, actually believe in personal responsibility?

That's the thing. I don't know if I disagree. I just need to know what you propose.

 

[pknopp]

People do need to consider other ideas but the GOP have none to consider. You'll note he really doesn't come up with any.

Arguing that the police should not be held accountable when they do wrong is not the answer.

The opposite of undermining the police so that more black people die, is a good idea for a candidate.

That you spin it as NOT holding them accountable, shows that the bar for ideas, is NOT to be dishonest and suicidal.

It's right in the article. He is for keeping the idea of "qualified immunity" alive. That is a policy that allows the police to get away with violating our rights.

Why is it you feel a representative of the government should not be held accountable when they violate our rights?

Because in effect it opens up cops to idiot judges and juries who are not going to give them fair trials.

and they will know it.

You do this, and every intelligent cop, will quite or retire. You will only have dumb people as cops, who do not realize how exposed they are.

Our civil rights have long been established. No one is denying that they are violated. The argument is that we will not hold the police accountable for violating them. When one group is shown to be above the law there really is no legitimate law.

Again, your argument is that unless we allow the police to violate our rights we can not have a police force. OK, then that will be it.

I will be the first to condemn police violating rights. You know me. I hate that statist shit.

But, were is the line? What is expected? We have to decide what role police will have and how they go about it.

Maybe it's because of racial stereotypes, but I have never had a bad experience with police. Of course, I have never treated them with contempt or been hostile during any interaction.

Is there a racial stereotype that we need to overcome? YES. Can we do it when those of that stereotyped group constantly treat police officers with hostility and contempt? NO!!!

They aren't allowed to violate our civil rights should be an easy, clear line. They should be held accountable when they do.

Why should it be on the taxpayers to pay for that as opposed to the one who did it? Do we not really, actually believe in personal responsibility?

That's the thing. I don't know if I disagree. I just need to know what you propose.

I've said it in this thread. You remove Qualified Immunity. When a police officer violates someone's civil rights they are charged with doing so.