Lol, no. NATO stopped the Genocide from Serbia, helps protect Ukraine against Genocide from Ruzzia and protected Europe from russian invasion and loss of human freedoms for many decades. NATO is a net positive for all of Humanity.
No, NATO bombing lifted the Sarajevo siege (and killed ~500 civilians), and since the conflict lasted less than 3 weeks after that, saying 'initiating further conflicts on former Yugoslavian lands' is factually wrong.
My non-explicit point was that the Serbs were stopped by the UN peacekeepers, who stopped the advance and _a lot_ of rapes (which seemed to be the Serb army favourite tactic against civilians for some reason). NATO bombing did lift the siege and is said to have stopped the war, which is technically the truth but not really: basically the Serbs couldn't advance and tried to settle for a land grab. NATO bombing prevented the land grab, but the war would have stopped the moment Sarajevo's siege ended. Was the Serb internal political pressure enough to stop the siege (thus the war) around the same time it ended anyway? Impossible to know.
That may be the case, I am not an expert in law. I hope there is some type of repercussion for the cop that point-blanks a random driver.
I just don't hold much faith in the separation of power between state and federal government, it sounds like there has been a massive erosion of this barrier since the civil war and the abuse of the commerce clause and all that.
this is not true. why is this upvoted? first of all, ICE is federal. second, they were acting as part of "federal official" duties. it will be trivial to move any state prosecution to federal court.
Federal officers aren't immune from state prosecution just because they're federal officers, or because they're doing their federal duties at the moment. They also have to be acting in accord with their federal duties. See, e.g., https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/are-federal-officials-i... (although that's not in response to the current incident).
They will certainly attempt to dismiss any charges, but they are far from guaranteed that they will be successful.
That doesn't matter. It's not enough that they were doing their job beforehand, their actions at stake have to comport with their actual duties.
So is it part of their official duties to walk in front of a car of someone who is trying to leave the scene, alter their path when the car turns out of the way to ensure they remain in their way, and then shoot the driver? Or is that merely the kind of excessive force that's in contravention of their training and not part of their job role?
Okay so you agree she was trying to drive away and not trying to hit an officer. You think the correct response is immediate extrajudicial murder? You can’t be serious.
I watched the video too. Not sure what a 33 min Asmongold stream(your link) has to do with it. Does he add some valuable analysis? What's his authority or expertise on the matter?
There's a lot going on so it can be difficult to keep track of, but the Supreme court made Trump call the NG back from the states he had deployed them in.
shot and killed - they haven't even been charged, let alone arraigned for murder yet (they would definitely get not guilty for that - manslaughter at worst given the cirumstances).
they can be charged with anything, but there's no way this guy is convicted of murder.
anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention to the hundreds of analogous situations that have been happening to blacks.
literally just look it up, the exact scenario has already played out before. cop gets off. and I mean literally exact scenario - with two cops, one in front, one to the side, driver (black) tries to drive off, front cop shoots and kills the black guy, is convicted, and acquitted. seriously, look it up.
George Zimmerman stalked Treyvon Martin, shot and killed him and was still acquitted. you think this guy is going to be convicted really?
? the chauvin case wasn't the same at all. he choked flyod needlessly for 10 minutes. completely unnecessary and good that chauvin was convicted. I follow these cases since I'm part of a police justice group - I've never seen a case similar to what happened here where the officer was convicted. there's just too much precedent that if a car is going towards you the officer is justified in shooting
if you have an example of a similar situation where the cop is convicted I am very very interested.
Trying to stop a moving vehicle by standing in front of it is a) dumb, b) not what law enforcement is trained to do. It will be argued that it's not the case the officer had no better choice.
Yes, our justice system is outright broken since the Supreme Council handed obscene amounts of power to a wannabe dictator, putting him and his Stasi above the law. But that doesn't mean We The People cannot call it like it is - murder.
No. The Constitution is the law, and everyone working for this regime is an anti-American traitor. I'm pretty sure the terror squads are wearing masks because if we could identify them, we would see most have been drawn from so-called "patriot" militias [0] and let loose to attack American cities under the color of law (which apparently now includes executing citizens).
[0] the naming of which also turned out to be another lie, surprise surprise
I am an American, I just don't believe this idea that the law has anything to do with principles or a hard code of rules. That just isn't what I observe in practice, unless the enforcers of the law happen to be totally neutral to the conflict at hand.
The law is enforced based on the general feelings of the people in power, and they will bend principles to punish/reward those that they perceive to be "bad" and "good" accordingly, based on their prejudices.
The idea that "might makes right" is sort of a tautology. What you consider to be right is based on a historical precedent set by the mighty.
