Judge limits Detroit police

[danielpalos]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

While you leftests see looting, and property damage, as well as general mayhem and terroristic like activity toward normal people, as justifiable, the rest of us certainly do not....But, you summed up your approach to most things in here when you, possibly unconsciously, that, to paraphrase, people project their own frustrations and failure of argument onto others....This clearly is what liberals like you do on a daily basis around here.

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[j-mac]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

While you leftests see looting, and property damage, as well as general mayhem and terroristic like activity toward normal people, as justifiable, the rest of us certainly do not....But, you summed up your approach to most things in here when you, possibly unconsciously, that, to paraphrase, people project their own frustrations and failure of argument onto others....This clearly is what liberals like you do on a daily basis around here.

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

LOL....Why you quoting that slave owner?

You people are simply delusional...You really think that this is the struggle you want your cause to die on? How stupid are you?

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

While you leftests see looting, and property damage, as well as general mayhem and terroristic like activity toward normal people, as justifiable, the rest of us certainly do not....But, you summed up your approach to most things in here when you, possibly unconsciously, that, to paraphrase, people project their own frustrations and failure of argument onto others....This clearly is what liberals like you do on a daily basis around here.

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

LOL....Why you quoting that slave owner?

You people are simply delusional...You really think that this is the struggle you want your cause to die on? How stupid are you?

The government can't win. Those with a lot to lose can never win over those with little to lose in a situation like this.

 

[j-mac]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Are you saying you'd like to set up a scenerio where the 'Militia' faces off with the US Military? Yeah, that won't end well....

 

[j-mac]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

While you leftests see looting, and property damage, as well as general mayhem and terroristic like activity toward normal people, as justifiable, the rest of us certainly do not....But, you summed up your approach to most things in here when you, possibly unconsciously, that, to paraphrase, people project their own frustrations and failure of argument onto others....This clearly is what liberals like you do on a daily basis around here.

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

LOL....Why you quoting that slave owner?

You people are simply delusional...You really think that this is the struggle you want your cause to die on? How stupid are you?

The government can't win. Those with a lot to lose can never win over those with little to lose in a situation like this.

Yeah, we'll see....Talk to me in 6 months, and let's see how this little tantrum by Socialist shitheads is going then....

 

[Darkwind]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

 

[danielpalos]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Are you saying you'd like to set up a scenerio where the 'Militia' faces off with the US Military? Yeah, that won't end well....

Reading comprehension is not a right wing strong suit.

 

[Darkwind]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did read the article. What you are failing to understand is she is making a ruling on the basis of something that HAS NOT HAPPENED.

You say, "She did not say they could not have anything". But she said they cannot have the tools that are the MOST EFFECTIVE against violent protesters.

 

[Darkwind]

Someone answer this.

This judge is ruling on the basis of what? What is the impetus of the ruling? Usually, some wrong has to have been committed for a judge to step in and stop it.

WHERE is the evidence the police have violated protesters rights?

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did read the article. What you are failing to understand is she is making a ruling on the basis of something that HAS NOT HAPPENED.

Then you did not read the article.

After reviewing videos of police interactions with protesters, Michelson determined that some protesters could win their case.

You say, "She did not say they could not have anything". But she said they cannot have the tools that are the MOST EFFECTIVE against violent protesters.

Quote it........like I did.

 

[Darkwind]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did read the article. What you are failing to understand is she is making a ruling on the basis of something that HAS NOT HAPPENED.

Then you did not read the article.

After reviewing videos of police interactions with protesters, Michelson determined that some protesters could win their case.

You say, "She did not say they could not have anything". But she said they cannot have the tools that are the MOST EFFECTIVE against violent protesters.

Quote it........like I did.

Win their case against what? A judge making a ruling on cases not before her is hardly proof.

Why is it you won't address the main point? That she has no basis to believe that the police have acted against the rights of peaceful protesters and therefore, has no basis for the ruling.

 

[pknopp]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did read the article. What you are failing to understand is she is making a ruling on the basis of something that HAS NOT HAPPENED.

Then you did not read the article.

After reviewing videos of police interactions with protesters, Michelson determined that some protesters could win their case.

You say, "She did not say they could not have anything". But she said they cannot have the tools that are the MOST EFFECTIVE against violent protesters.

Quote it........like I did.

Win their case against what? A judge making a ruling on cases not before her is hardly proof.

She ruled upon the evidence provided to her. That's what judges do.

Why is it you won't address the main point? That she has no basis to believe that the police have acted against the rights of peaceful protesters and therefore, has no basis for the ruling.

You saw the video's she ruled on? Of course you didn't.

 

[22lcidw]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

There are people who go from birth to death living without doing much of anything in life. That is not the responsibility of the schmuck trying to forge a living having to keep paying more out of his wallet.

 

[danielpalos]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.


Judge bans Detroit police tactics against protesters

This is what should be happening:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Why is that not being enforced? We have an incorporated Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

There are people who go from birth to death living without doing much of anything in life. That is not the responsibility of the schmuck trying to forge a living having to keep paying more out of his wallet.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[Compost]

The Will Breathe group claims the Detroit police used excessive force. Detroit Police Chief Craig is a good cop from what I have observed.

"The judge’s order is no different than what we’ve always done," Craig said. "Every time we've had to use less-than-lethal force, it's been to address violence by protesters, resisting arrest, or when they've tried to take over an intersection in violation of the law. Technically, nothing has changed."

The ruling came two days after the Detroit Board of Police Commissioners approved guidelines barring the city's officers from using chokeholds and requiring them to intervene when their colleagues exert unnecessary force.

Craig said since the judge's order bars action against "peaceful protesters," his officers needn't change what they've already been doing.

Judge bans Detroit police from using tear gas, batons or rubber bullets against 'peaceful protesters'

 

[jknowgood]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They aren't peaceful and wait till the law abiding citizens step in. There will be alot of dead liberals. Trust me, keep it up.

 

[Anathema]

A federal judge late Friday temporarily banned Detroit police from using batons, shields, gas, rubber bullets, chokeholds or sound cannons against Black Lives Matter protesters. What could possibly go wrong.

Leaving them with nothing other than lethal force weapons to deal with this scum.

 

[j-mac]

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say the police couldn't react to acts of violence. That's you jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Why would they use any of these things against peaceful protesters? Maybe Trump has an answer to that.

They have never used any of that against peaceful protesters, so your question should be to the judge.

The DO USE all of that against rioters, and rightly so.

In Detroit? I don't know. I'd have to do some reading. Trump did though. Maybe the judge was being pro-active based upon past actions.

No, the Obama appointed judge is trying to disarm the police so that there is nothing they can do in the face of the BLM rioters....

The judge didn't say anything about rioters.

No? Did you read the article?

".... against the city of Detroit, accusing police of using excessive force to deter protesters from practicing their free speech rights."

Yes, the right to loot a Nike store? The right to throw bricks at what now are unprotected police? The right to damage property, and assault people?

Pathetic.

You can spin it all you want. She warned the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protesters like Trump did.

You miss the point entirely. She ruled against the police to NOT violate the rights of peaceful protestors, but the police have NOT violated the rights of peaceful protesters.

Her ruling gives rioters the upper hand when they decide to stop being peaceful.

The old adage of "it is better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun when you do need it" is the principle at stake here and the basis of maintaining civil order.

It is much better to have the shields, batons, and deterents and NOT use them, than to take them away from the cops when they DO need to use them.

When a mob starts attacking the cops, burning cars and buildings, lasering the eyes of the police, and tossing bricks and other deadly things at them, they are NOT peaceful protesters.

She didn't say they couldn't have anything. She said that they could not use them against peaceful protesters and based upon the evidence provided her that they had a valid complaint.

Did you not read the article?

I did....however, if you think that removing the equipment needed for riot control, or used to disperse crowds, then say “well, she didn’t say they couldn’t act.” Just how do you expect them to respond?