Posted on 07/25/2020 3:17:12 PM PDT by Kevin in California
A federal judge has blocked Seattle’s ban on non-lethal police equipment. District Judge James Robart granted a temporary restraining order on the legislation this week, which will allow officers to continue using the crowd control measures.
The Department of Justice argued the ban could lead rioters to cause even more violence, which would escalate officer’s use force in the process.
According to Judge Roberts, the law was not discussed between the city and Justice Department sufficiently. Seattle’s police chief voiced similar concerns over the legislation and claimed the move would create more violent situations.
Now SPD, bash in some skulls tonight.
Good.
The irony is that this wouldn’t even come under a Federal Court’s jurisdiction ... except that the Seattle PD has been operating under a DOJ consent decree since 2012.
Not really.
Robarts was the judge that initially blocked Pres. Trump from barring people from those 7 terrorist/ countries torn by war without governments nations. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Somalia. The democrats said it was discriminatory to Muslims. This judge agreed with them.
The DNCMedia didn’t tell you that 40 other countries with majority Muslim populations were NOT barred.
.....”District Judge James Robart......”
.....”According to Judge Roberts,....”
Did I miss something here...? I’m not as sharp as I used to be, but still.....
But never forget, the police chief willingly was going to follow this illegal order.
And people demand I support the police?
JoMa
An accidental dirk to durkan’s empty head would be unfortunate.
Wee dont ewes editurs. Wee dont Kneed editurs.
Trump should force Consent Decrees ala Obama on the nation’s police to ENSURE the use of crowd control devices.
In a stunning moment of tragic irony, the day before Trump’s speech, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot criticized President Trump’s plan saying he was trying to deploy “unnamed special secret agents” and strip civil liberties form people. She said it “is not going to happen in Chicago.” It was the same day the15 people were shot and killed at a funeral home – where they were grieving for someone who had been killed by criminal violence. What about their civil liberties, Mayor Lightfoot?
That is a GREAT idea! Turn those tools and devices AGAINST them!
How the Obama Justice Department used “consent decrees” as club to nationalize law enforcementSo why can't the Trump administration "find a way to nationalize state or local law enforcement" like Obama did? Let's get our own "court-ordered federal monitors" into these war-torn cities!
How the Obama Justice Department used “consent decrees” as club to nationalize law enforcement
By Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D.
April 11, 2017The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, authored by then Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, gave the Obama administration (under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch) a club with which to “police the police.”
That club – in the form of “consent decrees” – was wielded to intimidate state and local government law enforcement authorities to buckle under various charges of civil rights violations.
A consent decree is an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case).
Through court-ordered consent decrees, the Obama administration Justice Department (DOJ) has forced dozens of state and local law enforcement officials to plead guilty rather than fight a Justice Department investigation and civil or criminal complaint as well as accept to run their departments under direction of a court-ordered federal monitor.
In effect, the Obama administration found a way to nationalize any state or local law enforcement department or agency that insisted on strict enforcement of immigration laws, or exerted diligence in policing crime-ridden minority inner cities to protect law-abiding citizens against the ravages of criminal, drug-dealing gangs.
Spll chek is arun edeetur.
It's a law and the way you overturn a law is not by violating it but by demonstrating it's unconstitutionality or violation of other powers or rights or limits thereon.
In the meantime, the Chief must obey the law.
“And people demand I support the police?”
One bad decision by one police chief in a liberal city and you don’t want to support police in general?
“...What about their civil liberties, Mayor Lightfoot?...”
The BeetleJuice demon don’t give a rat’s azz who gets killed as long as they get killed. The more killed, the giddier it gets.
Seriously, are you that blind that you think my position is based on one bad decision by one police chief??
JoMa
A law is not a law if it contradicts superior law.
JoMa
better idea
let Seattle burn
bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.