A pair of 'pro-police' GOP bills in Missouri draw scrutiny from free speech advocates (Liberty: crime rates)

[Versatile]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/a-pair-of...175303375.html



Republican lawmakers in Missouri are looking to pass two bills this month that they say better protect both residents and law enforcement officers from “violent protesters.”

But critics say the measures will curtail the free speech rights of protesters, and effectively act as retaliation against demonstrators following the racial unrest surrounding the police killings of Black Americans such as George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.

Please read it all before comment

[TRex2]

From the above link:

S.B. 66, the more contentious bill of the two, initially contained a proposal giving immunity to individuals who run over protesters, effectively granting the “stand your ground” defense to vehicles. That plan has since been removed.

It is sad, that they removed that provision.

The bill also prevents municipalities from decreasing their law enforcement budgets by more than 12 percent relative to the proposed budgets of other departments in a given municipality. Many see this last part as a response to the “defund the police” movement, which encouraged communities to restructure police budgets by investing more in community-oriented services.

No, it doesn't encourage communities to restructure police by investing more in community-oriented services.

It encourages lawlessness by reducing the police ability to respond to violent rioters.

[sub]

So some people want it to be okay to block traffic, never mind some people who drive cars might be going somewhere in emergency situations. Okay.
As recent crime rates have shown, people take advantage when police forces are scaled back or are otherwise unable to do their jobs.

If there were as much outrage over the vastly bigger problem of thuggish behavior in this country as their have been towards perceived police brutality (I realize there have been rare exceptions), we might be living in a much less violent society right now.
Typical wrongheaded liberalism.
Defund the police, take away law-abiding citizens guns..... leaving us at a point only a strong-armed authoritarian could come in and fix things.
Seriously, what's the endgame with these people?

[skeddy]

Eventually there won't be police if they lose qualified immunity at work. Who wants to go to work at a job such as policing knowing everything you own can be taken away from you and your family by a fickle jury out to get rid of police.

Can that happen at your job?

[TRex2]

Originally Posted by sub

...
If there were as much outrage over the vastly bigger problem of thuggish behavior in this country as their have been towards perceived police brutality (I realize there have been rare exceptions), we might be living in a much less violent society right now.

Not really news to those of us who have not been infected with LBEV. In 2Corinthians 3:17, it says"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." And John Adams said " “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The rioters are not where the "Spirit of the Lord is," nor are they "a moral and religious People." Frankly, were these riots are occurring doesn't fit those descriptions, either. Liberty is not the normal equilibrium found in mankind, authoritarian kings are. It was 1500 years of logic of Greece, rule of law, by the Romans, and a belief in God who would hold men to account, that gave Europe and the US the ability to live in a state of liberty.

But these people are of a kind that only understand power. They prove Machiavelli's notion that, following a time of weak government, the only way out of chaos is through the iron hand of a dictator. I often say that the difference between Anarchy and Tyranny is like the difference between 11 and 1.

On the Face of a Clock.

With either, rule is by the guy with the most firepower and the least morals.

Typical wrongheaded liberalism.
Defund the police, take away law-abiding citizens guns..... leaving us at a point only a strong-armed authoritarian could come in and fix things.

I often say that the difference between Anarchy and Tyranny is like the difference between 11 and 1.

On the Face of a Clock.

With either, rule is by the guy with the most firepower and the least morals.

Seriously, what's the endgame with these people?

"These people" don't have an endgame. They are the unwitting puppets of foreign powers who want to undermine the United States. Ultimately, they will win, and the US will fall. Every kingdom, that rises, will fall.
(Read "Fate of Empires" )

[TRex2]

Originally Posted by sub

...
Seriously, what's the endgame with these people?

This might shed some light on the idea of an end game.

https://www.takimag.com/article/the-...e-let-it-burn/

People become homicidally enraged for irrational and invalid reasons every day. To harness that human flaw and turn it into a mass movement is to marshal atomic-bomb-level destructive power.

1619 is not the year that defines the present moment; 1943 is. Artificially re-creating that April 1943 ghetto fighter fanaticism in the minds of American blacks is the goal of a small but committed group of zealots in politics, academia, Hollywood, and the press. The endgame is to get blacks to feel exactly as those Jewish fighters did. “You’re being crushed by an oppressive power; freedom, equality, and the chance to live will never be granted. The racist oppressor seeks your death at every turn. This oppressor killed your ancestors and kills your children. This oppressor cannot be reasoned with or lived with. In the absence of hope, what remains but to fight back? And if fighting back means sacrificing your own ‘people’—so be it.”