Donald Trump Says Looters ‘Should Expect To Be Shot’ If He Retakes White House In 2024

[LMAO]

When did this become a federal issue and no longer a State issue?  These are entirely different.

I might be wrong,  but I think he was just pointing out  the similar  rhetoric used by both

At least that's how I understood it

[Fishrrman]

mountaineer wrote:
"Shooting looters who do not pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to another person is not an appropriate response under the law. It might feel good to the person shooting the thief - but only until he finds himself prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide."

I disagree.

The lootings won't stop UNTIL extreme force is "executed" upon the wrongdoers, enough times to convince a certain demographic of the population that it just isn't worth it to try any longer. I daresay that this is the ONLY "persuasion" that a good number of them will understand.

What could a president and/or a conservative governor do regarding this?

The governor of a state should issue a statement, to wit, that anyone arrested for the shooting of a "verified" looter would receive a full and complete pardon, making it impossible to prosecute that person in the state courts. I believe that governors in at least some states have the power to do this.

But what about federal "civil rights" charges?
Well, in concert with the governor's pardon, the president could also issue an immediate pardon that absolves anyone pardoned by a state governor from federal prosecution, as well. There's no doubt about the power of the president to issue pardons (at least at the federal level). Ask Gerald Ford.

That will take care of it.
You loot?
We shoot... without fear of prosecution at either state or federal levels.

OK, Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis.
I've shown you the way.
After talking the talk, will you care to walk the walk?

The above post is not made in jest.
Sorry if you don't like it.

[libertybele]

mountaineer wrote:
"Shooting looters who do not pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to another person is not an appropriate response under the law. It might feel good to the person shooting the thief - but only until he finds himself prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide."

I disagree.

The lootings won't stop UNTIL extreme force is "executed" upon the wrongdoers, enough times to convince a certain demographic of the population that it just isn't worth it to try any longer. I daresay that this is the ONLY "persuasion" that a good number of them will understand.

What could a president and/or a conservative governor do regarding this?

The governor of a state should issue a statement, to wit, that anyone arrested for the shooting of a "verified" looter would receive a full and complete pardon, making it impossible to prosecute that person in the state courts. I believe that governors in at least some states have the power to do this.

But what about federal "civil rights" charges?
Well, in concert with the governor's pardon, the president could also issue an immediate pardon that absolves anyone pardoned by a state governor from federal prosecution, as well. There's no doubt about the power of the president to issue pardons (at least at the federal level). Ask Gerald Ford.

That will take care of it.
You loot?
We shoot... without fear of prosecution at either state or federal levels.

OK, Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis.
I've shown you the way.
After talking the talk, will you care to walk the walk?

The above post is not made in jest.
Sorry if you don't like it.

Where was Trump when he promised (more than once) to calm the riots after Floyd was murdered???  It ALL stemmed from him not doing his job for fear of political retribution.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

You confident there isn't some Soros-DA who is just looking to prosecute a right wing terrorist racist who shoots a looter in your area? Best to hunker down and stay home if they're looting. For every Rittenhouse who is acquitted there is one who is convicted. Best not to ruin your life over something stupid.

[mountaineer]

mountaineer wrote:
"Shooting looters who do not pose a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to another person is not an appropriate response under the law. It might feel good to the person shooting the thief - but only until he finds himself prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide."

I disagree.

The lootings won't stop UNTIL extreme force is "executed" upon the wrongdoers, enough times to convince a certain demographic of the population that it just isn't worth it to try any longer. I daresay that this is the ONLY "persuasion" that a good number of them will understand.

It's not a matter of me liking it or not liking it. It's the law.

[Right_in_Virginia]

What's kind of amazing in this thread was that Trump promised to shoot looters, someone points out that he didn't do that in 2020, and then @Right_in_Virginia strolls in to point out that he didn't have the legal authority to do that in 2020.  Completely ignoring that Trump still doesn't have the legal authority to do it now, but just promised it anyway.

Now do DeSantis @Maj. Bill Martin 

DeSantis vows to ‘start slitting throats on day one’
The Hill, BY JULIA MANCHESTER - 08/03/23

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) on Sunday said he would “start slitting throats on day one” when it comes to taking on the “deep state.”

DeSantis made the remarks at a barbecue campaign event in Rye, N.H., hosted by former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.).

“We’re going to have all of these deep state people, you know, we are going to start slitting throats on day one,” DeSantis said.

This is not the first time the Florida governor has used the terminology. Last month, during an interview with the right-leaning outlet Real America’s Voice, DeSantis used the expression when talking about how he would change the hierarchy in the Department of Defense if elected.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4135422-desantis-vows-to-start-slitting-throats-on-day-one/

[Hoodat]

Interesting..... what part of the Constitution and/or established legal precedent would you have recommended President Trump sidestep to accomplish this "anything"?

He wouldn't have to.  The Constitution does not stand in the way of quelling riots.  But then you knew that already.

[Hoodat]

I might be wrong,  but I think he was just pointing out  the similar  rhetoric used by both

At least that's how I understood it

Yeah, I get that.  But looting is a state crime, not a federal crime.

[LMAO]

253. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter13&edition=prelim


Lincoln used federal troops to suppress the Draft riots in NY during the Civil War

But, we're talking about looting here vs a full scale riot so the IA probably isn't  applicable

[Hoodat]

But, we're talking about looting here vs a full scale riot so the IA probably isn't  applicable

What we're talking about here is more in a very long flow of bullshit coming from one Donald Trump.  There is as much likelihood of Trump ordering looters shot as there is of Trump building a wall with a Republican House and Senate.  Or of Trump bringing the deficit down.  Or of Trump ending baseline budgeting.  Or of Trump draining the Swamp.  Or . . .

[Smokin Joe]

He did not invoke the Insurrection act on BLM, ect.


After the merciless 1/6 prosecutions, would he fail to do so given another opportunity?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Now do DeSantis @Maj. Bill Martin

As usual, you didn't even attempt to defend your own hypocrisy, nor Trump's.  You just deflected, and this time with a really, really crappy example.

Absolutely nobody thought DeSantis was going to be literally slitting throats.  It's a euphemism for firing people, just like "heads are on the chopping block" or "heads will roll", etc..  Nobody seriously believes those expressions means people are going to be literally killed by decapitation.  But it's kind of amusing watching the level of dishonesty you bring to discussions in equating DeSantis' use of an obvious euphemism with Trump promising to shoot looters, which is a threat that people do consider literally.