Trump Calls On Police To Be Rougher In Handling Suspects In Speech Denounced By Police Organizations

Controversial statements by President Donald Trump in the past have often been treated by his supporters as hyperbole or not to be taken strictly or even seriously.  However, a speech last Friday had some particularly chilling elements for anyone who believes in the rule of the law.  Trump was speaking to law enforcement officers and urged them not to be “too nice” to suspected criminals and gang members.  He further seemed to encourage intentional acts of harm and abuse in the handling of prisoners. The comments were irresponsible and should be be corrected by the White House.  We recently discussed Trump’s praise for Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, who has bragged about extrajudicial killings and encouraged police abuse.  This is obviously not that extreme but it is still highly disturbing in a speech where the President has pledged that “We have your backs 100 percent” while encouraging them to be rough in handling of suspects. His comments have led to police organizations publicly rejecting the comments and assuring the public that they will not engage in such conduct.

In his speech in Brentwood, New York, Trump departed from his prepared comments to encourage police to be tougher in handling suspects:

“When you see these towns, and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough,” he said, referring to the arrest of alleged gang members. “I said, please don’t be too nice.”

“When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over,” [mimicking an officer protecting the head of a suspect] Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody? Don’t hit their head?”

“I said, you can take the hand away, OK?”

He went on to praise his  acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan  as “a tough guy”  and his agents as “Rough guys. They’re rough.”

The President’s comments about letting suspects hit their heads on police cars was met by laughter from the officers in the audience.

Police experts have denounced the Presidents’ comments as “irresponsible.”

The President’s comments could also, again, be introduced in court as evidence of a policy of more physical or abusive tactics. The White House has said that the President’s tweets and comments are official policy statements. In cases alleging harm to suspects, these words could be introduced to show an encouragement for tactics to rough up or harm suspects.  Police are constitutionally and civilly required to protect suspects from harm in these circumstances.  The suspect is under the control of the officer and not able to freely move.  That is why officers protect their heads in putting them into cruisers.  Otherwise, officers could regularly slam the heads of suspects into cars and claim that the suspects were careless.


169 thoughts on “Trump Calls On Police To Be Rougher In Handling Suspects In Speech Denounced By Police Organizations”

  1. America has gone soft on crime in all forms. Lincoln’s assassination conspirators were hanged to death within 3 months. Law and order prevailed before the principles of the Communist Manifesto were imposed on America. The welfare state, for the benefit of parasites, did not exist.

    America has been defrauded by fraudulent “civil rights” attorneys, betrayed by profiteers as politicians and its children are brainwashed and indoctrinated daily on redistribution and social engineering, in “education camps” called public schools, by lazy, greedy, collectivist, striking teachers union thugs.

    President Trump’s casual mention of appropriate treatment of people who abuse fellow citizens by deliberately and willfully ignoring and violating the law does not even begin to reverse America’s journey into incoherence and hysteria.

  2. Another day, another pile of manure coming from the dysfunctional occupant of the White House. The real risk we face is outrage overload with this person. This isn’t a partisan matter: Diane is right: when police violate the civil rights of someone who is arrested by physically abusing them or failing to take reasonable steps to protect them from foreseeable injury, it is the taxpayers who ultimately cover the litigation costs, damages, and attorney fees. Jonathan is right: when someone is in handcuffs and is being directed into a police car, he or she is not in control of their movements and could strike their head and become injured. Because such injuries have happened, police are trained to protect a suspect’s head when placing them in a police car. Police agencies have taught their officers this for years. Encouraging police to violate the law by abusing someone or failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable injury to someone who got arrested is just stupid. Chump did this because he thinks it makes him look macho, pro-police–appealing to the baser instincts of his base. Just like Scaramucchi, it makes him look stupid and incompetent. Multiple police agencies see through this garbage. They don’t want to get sued or accused of being abusive. In fact, they don’t want to hurt people in the first place. Sometimes people who get arrested are juveniles or they may have mental or substance abuse problems. They may not be guilty of anything. Officers know they aren’t the judge or jury: they just bring them in and let the facts and law get sorted out by others. They are way more professional than the dipstick occupying the Oval Office, who has, as Jonathan points out, just created an exhibit for use at a police brutality trial.

    Olly thinks ordinary citizens are confused about the law, but I don’t think so. Most people know that police can’t rough up someone in the process of arresting them.

    1. Olly thinks ordinary citizens are confused about the law, but I don’t think so.

      For the reading impaired, that’s not what I said. Here is what I said:

      Is it any wonder why the average citizen has no idea what justice means anymore?

      The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so.

      So, when ordinary citizens witness the political class immune from prosecution for crimes that ordinary citizens are prosecuted for; when they witness criminals that are in this country illegally being protected and released back onto our streets; when they hear one President incite violence against Law Enforcement and another encourage Law Enforcement to violate the civil rights of suspects; you tell me, what constitutes JUSTICE? Are we a nation of laws or not?

    2. “because he thinks it makes him look macho, pro-police”

      Skipping whether one likes or dislikes the President, one has to look at the comments out of the eyes of the police. They have been demeaned and some have even died because of statements and actions made by others that helped lead to the killings. Present Obama’s statements towards the police were negative and not helpful to law enforcement. Consider this an insufficient counterbalance to Obama’s actions that have made police work and the prevention of crime that much more difficult.

  3. Next up, a long disquisition from patriotbillmcwilliamscurri on ZOG.

  4. I see Prof. Turley is trolling his conspirazoid palaeoloons today.

  5. I’m still waiting (not really) for something bad to happen to FBI HRT sniper Lon Horiuchi, the guy who shot Vicki Weaver in the head while she was standing in the doorway of her home holding her infant. But he’s been pretty much forgotten and is enjoying his comfortable retirement.

    The federal mass murder at Waco has also been thrown down the memory hole:

  6. “of the law. Trump was speaking to law enforcement officers and urged them not to be “too nice” to suspected criminals and gang members. He further seemed to encourage intentional acts of harm and abuse in the handling of prisoners. The comments were ”

    I saw no evidence or suggestion of ‘rough handling’ Quite the opposite as it promted a more stern approach than pujtting one white gloves to handle someone who had touched a Koran

    Beomg sterm instead of apologetic is far different from beating up the world with a baton which DOES occur and should be met with suspension, dismissal and charges filed.

    You can’t have it both ways so I looked at the fallacy of the argument and remembered the phrade tu ore te QuaCom or something very similar meaning debating at cross purposes from the original inntend statement to confuse the issue. i’m sure that’s not spelled write but someone with debate training from back in the days when it and public speaking were taught should be able to make the correction

  7. So on the one extreme we have a belief that local law enforcement is under no obligation to protect the citizens of this country by aiding federal law enforcement in removing from our midst criminals that have no legal rights to be on our streets; and on the other, we have a belief that innocent (until proven guilty) citizens can have their life, liberty and property rights violated by government at all levels. Is it any wonder why the average citizen has no idea what justice means anymore? Somewhere between these two extremes exist law intended to meet its constitutional purpose. If we cannot unite on that law, or at least that purpose for the law, then we cannot claim to be a nation of laws first; we can only claim to be a nation of the will of the majority first. That’s not a constitutional republic. Being charitable, it would be a utilitarian democracy.

  8. This may be a clumsy, indirect reference to “The Ferguson Effect”(brought about by the racial agitation of the last administration), which has led to widespread open displays of contempt for the police by gangbangers and their hangers-on in cities like Chicago and Baltimore. Also an explosion of homicides in those and several other cities.

    1. When will Turley state the obvious and call out Trump as UNFIT?

      Why would he need to? He’s got you and plenty others doing that, long before he was even sworn into office. Now if you need your ego stroked, I’m sure there are plenty of blog sites that will confirm your bias.

  9. This is Trump at his absolute worst. For starters people getting arrested aren’t officially criminals until they’ve been convicted of something. Trump is encouraging police to be rough with people who :might” be criminals. And he doesn’t specify what kind of “criminal.” Not everyone getting arrested is an ax murderer–most arrests are for things like driving w/out insurance, shoplifting or small-scale drug possession. .

    Even worse there are lots of mentally ill cops out there looking to take out there problems in defenseless victims–often the people they arrest. It’s not a happy situation when the President of the United States encourages them.

    Whatever might have been wrong with Obama, or Bush, or even Nixon (until the very end) at least there was a sense of an adult being in charge. Not so with Trump.

    1. Rex

      Police should operate more like Fire departments and only respond whenever they’re called. It’s hugely wasteful to pay for armed people to drive around looking to stop people whose car tailight is broken or drivers with open containers of drugs (e.g. alcohol).

      1. You might have something of a point but there’s a big difference between police & fire department functions.
        Police can deter crime–fire departments can’t do anything until the problem exists.

      2. Police should operate more like Fire departments and only respond whenever they’re called.

        Why stop there. Let’s just have military on demand as well. Close all our bases around the world. Recall all forward deployed forces. It’s hugely wasteful to have our forces… How about our Border Patrol? Have them stand down as well. Send them out to respond to a call. Where else can we cut costs? UN? NATO? Let’s recall the Senate? Repeal the 17th amendment and then have the state legislatures send their designated Senators to D.C. only as needed. Taxation could change as well. Have the government send a bill to the citizens for the services they provide with the actual costs. Then when the citizen has to pay the tax, they will understand the cost of government. Yeah that will work.

        I think you’re on to something here Bill.

        1. olly
          U.S. has 800 military bases in more than 70 countries. Russia has two bases outside of Russia: Syria & Vietnam.
          You’re right. They’re a huge waste of money & most should be closed.

          Before you offer an alternative, you need to first show why my proposal shouldn’t be adopted.

          1. Before you offer an alternative, you need to first show why my proposal shouldn’t be adopted.

            Ahem, before you offer an alternative, you need to first show why the current system needs to be changed.

  10. Trump is run by his military handlers. Many of his followers are just like O-bots, cheering their man’s every base crime because they love a tough man and they never once believe they will be caught in the net, nor do they believe these abusive powers will pass to the next person. How wrong those O-bots were. The powers they gave to their savior passed right on to their worst nightmare.

    Trump supporters, pay attention. Trump is not “manly”. He is a bully and a coward. A real man knows that respect for the rule of law is necessary for a functioning, good society. A real man knows how to do things with justice. He’s not a killer. He’s a thinker and a feeler and he has empathy. You worship a stupid and dull man who advocates violence at home and abroad. If we the people won’t stand up for the rule of law and for justice, no one is going to do it. Don’t think you can’t be touched by the chaos that a lawless society brings with it.

    Why cheer your own society’s destruction? Only fools do that. Police don’t need to be brutal and no citizen should want that from their police. It’s up to citizens to want the best for our society, not the worst. Please start seeing through violence and wanting better for the US and the rest of the world.

      1. I love it when women tell us what “real men” are. However, if men tell women what “real women” are they get the vapors and throw out “sexist” accusations like they’re beads @ a Mardi Gras parade.

        There was a former guest blogger named, Elaine Magliaro. She was a special snowflake who would do what Jill just did, but if someone called her on it, the other male guest bloggers would act like gallant knights protecting her and attacking the commenter . THANK GOD those days are in the past.

    1. You said:

      A real man knows that respect for the rule of law is necessary for a functioning, good society. A real man knows how to do things with justice. He’s not a killer. He’s a thinker and a feeler and he has empathy.

      I don’t think so. First, the “criminal”, the fellow at the center of the police conduct, already has no respect for the law, or else he would not be at the center of the police activity. Thus, his lack of respect already works against a functioning society.

      Since “respect” wasn’t sufficient for him to obey the law, society now has to “give him the business” in some manner. This can be a simple monetary fine, and the humiliation of having to deal with it. Or the miscreant can be thrown into a cage with other miscreants, which definitely is not an empathetic thing to do. The miscreant will be abused, raped, and robbed of any remaining humanity, mostly by the other miscreants. He or she will often come out more vile than when he or she went in.

      OTOH, if the state is allowed to be a “killer” on a much more proficient level, then there will be less crime. If wardens were allowed to flog prisoners again, that would probably tend to cut down on the rape and physical abuse. Similarly, if the cops could simply beat the crap out of some of these idiots, that might also force a little more compliance with the law.

      The upshot is, that for criminals, the violence is going to come to them one way or the other. I submit that thinking and feeling has only made the problem worse, and insure that more people will be animalized in prison.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Squeek, Did you know “anonymous” is our old friend, Elaine. What did Penelope call her?

        1. No. I know who Frankly is. Penelope had a poet contributor on Pansies called Ellie Mangle-Lero, who used to write poetry for children. I am not sure that there was any connection. But Ellie wrote some fine children’s poetry! Such as:

          Oh Hai!

          Today is Poetry Friday, and I wanted to do another children’s poem. There is no doubt that there is an obesity epidemic among kids today. As a result, a number of previously adult diseases and problems are manifesting themselves in children. For example, gall bladder problems. This poem is my latest children’s poem to help them deal with realistic problems in a sensitive, caring and nurturing manner!

          Bobby Was A Blubber Butt!

          Bobby was a blubber butt.
          My God! He had a massive gut!
          He stuffed his face at every meal,
          And when was finished, hungry still.

          Mom and Dad made him a diet,
          Little Bobby wouldn’t try it.
          He ate candy and drank cokes,
          And was the butt of his friends’ jokes.

          Then, when things could not get badder,
          He got stones in his gall bladder!
          It hurt so much he pooped his pants!
          They had to call an ambulance!

          He cried and cried and made a scene.
          They had to give him some morphine!
          The Intake Nurse began to shout,
          “Quick, wheel him in and cut it out!”

          When Bobby was in the Post-Op,
          He promised pigging out would stop!
          No more candy, no more cokes!
          No more butter and egg yolks!

          And though his parent doubted him,
          He entered 5th grade very slim!
          He rode his bike out in the street,
          Without the special fat kid seat!

          And now that he was nice and slim,
          Mean kids didn’t throw rocks at him!
          And YOU! If to a diet you’ll stick,
          No one will call you “Moby Dick”!

          Everybody have a nice day!

          Ellie Mangle-Lero

          I do notice that the poetic styles are similar, but there seems to be a slight difference in tone with Mangle-Lero. She seems much more comfortable with her message.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. Squeeky, what is the story of the name changes? Is that due to some sort of moderation?

            1. Pansies started out as a parody inside-joke website of some Liberal Democratic people who used to both post and comment here, but left and started their own thing. I talked Penelope into helping me do Pansies, but our parodies could not keep up with reality. There was little we could satirize that the reality did not surpass. We may start Pansies back up one of these days. It was a very unique website.

              One of the most fun series, was the one where Mick Dumdell was committed for psychiatric observation. Here is the link to the last of the trilogy, and there are links to the previous 2 stories, which you ought to read first, since they are not far down in the article.


              To make a long story short, Mr. Dumdell became convinced that the TV show, Wayward Pines was a secretly coded paen to White Privilege. To atone for this, Mr. Dumdell and several other of the liberal posters took cookies and milk into the inner city to hand out to the black youth there. It did not end well for them.

              Anyway, the third article contains the court transcript of Mr. Dumdell’s sanity hearing.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. It is well written satire without the filters that sometimes should be used especially when treading so deeply into the soul. I don’t know for sure when, but sometimes the lack of filters causes vast misinterpretations leading to the opposite affect than desired. Jonathan Swift solved that problem with his satire so that the human frailties didn’t just exist in one segment of the population.

                You have made me curious, but recognizing that we are on a group forum there is no need to answer. What is your educational background and what do you do for a living? The writing I am seeing is quite good and inventive. I think I got to all portions including

                Additionally I liked some of your references though I am not sure if some were intentional. i.e. Leroy’s Bar-B-Que instead of Ollies Barbecue (the landmark court case though the fit is questionable.)

                Too bad you don’t have a list of the http’s in order to make sure that the entire satire was read.

                On a secondary point I now understand some of the pseudonyms, but someone mentioned that he changed his name on this list several times. Can you explain that history.

                1. There were more than two links, sooo I could not put them on one comment because the wordpress filter will spam moderate it. Sooo, here they are in order, without the https thing in front of them:

                  First, Mick Dumdell’s Wayward Pines article that started it all:


                  Then, Penelope’s announcement of the near riot when Dumdell and crew tried to hand out artesian bottled water and organic oatmeal cookies to the Black yutes, and Dumdell’s psychiatric commitment:


                  Then, an article from Mick Dumdell from inside the psych unit:


                  Then, Penelope’s announcement that Dumdell had been released from the psych unit, and trial transcript:


                  and, Ellie Mangle-Lero’s account of how an inter-racial verbal miscommunication was responsible for her beating, and near-rape:


                  Strangely, this was not Dumdell’s first psych commitment, for in a non-related story, he tells how he was locked up for a medical condition:


                  Sooo, that is the entire riot and Dumdell commitment string. Just put https in front of the link and it will work. I will go back and add this to the last article in a footnote, too.

                  As far as people changing their names, there are several liberals here who now post under different names. I suspect that some of them are from the crew that left, but I don’t know why they have changed their names. I don’t know if anybody has ever been permanently banned from this website. I suspect not, but who knows.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. Heck, I missed one.

                    This was Penelope’s UPDATE on Dumdell’s psych commitment. Just add https in front of it.


                    Squeeky Fromm
                    Girl Reporter

                  2. At least on my computer I could hyperlink to the spot desired. I don’t think most browsers today require the http: component.

                    I think they may moderate and close down specific addresses at will. That might mean that one thinks the name is involved and if removed from the list assumes a name change is necessary. Most likely only a new address is all that is required. I am not sure, but, have some evidence that could be correllation rather than causation.

                    If you can alter the website you could put all its parts together in sequence on one page. Do you know how many words were in the series? Polished up it might be publishable elsewhere.

      2. This is possibly the most ridiculous thing ever posted; congratulations. It’s fundamentally-flawed on so many levels to the point where no assertion made is based on anything that sentient beings would refer to as “fact” or”reality.” Are you an SVR agent, perhaps? To be so completely disconnected from actual human experience takes skill and dedication, and must therefore be intentional.

        This is to the squeak

    2. A bully is pretty much what you’ve earned and deserve, sister.

    3. “A real man knows how to do things with justice.”

      Jill, I won’t delve into your personal feelings towards Trump though I think many might be wrong, so why not concentrate on justice. There was a choice of two candidates, one basically hard working and honest and then there was Hillary Clinton dishonest to the core and willing to sell America for personal gain. It was a simple choice voting for Trump and supporting Trump especially now when we see how the Democratic Party functions. I won’t go into depth on the latest story of Debbie Wasserman Shultz who may have compromised the security of the United States and likely was willing to pay off her Pakistani IT guy because is seems almost certain that he had a lot of information bad for the DNC, many Democrats and Debbie Waserman Shultz.

      For anyone that doesn’t know the corrupt family of the IT guy already left the country and her Pakistani IT guy was arrested at Dulles Airport trying to leave the country. From now on Debbie shall be known as Debbie Does Dulles.

      1. Red-herring time again. The clown is the president, it’s his bloviating which is the topic herein. Very few free-thinkers will follow the shiny ball under the couch. Pravda Faux News will keep playing the same tired song as long as you keep dancing to it.

        This is to puppet Allen

        1. Mark M. “his bloviating” is what you compare to Clinton selling America, actions leading to the Benghazi dead, refusing to turn over a computer and emails that had American secrets on it etc. It is your right Mark to have dumb opinions, but few people in their right mind will agree with your assertion if the names of the players aren’t recognized.

          This is to Red-Herring AKA Red

      2. Allen yesss! We need to keep paying attention to the Awan bros connection to DWS.

  11. OT:

    “The case began when the city of Golden Valley tried to inspect the rental property of Jason and Jacki Wiebsick to check that their tenants were, among other things, maintaining a clean kitchen and tidy toilet—despite having no evidence that anything was wrong. The Wiebesicks discussed the inspection with their tenants, who did not want a needless invasion of their privacy. Together, they told the government to come back with a warrant.

    “Golden Valley officials went to court to ask for an administrative search warrant to force their way into the property. At first they did not even give notice to the tenants or landlords. They argued that an administrative warrant differed from a traditional criminal search warrant, in that it did not require any evidence of anything legally wrong with the home. Hennepin County Judge Susan Robiner, acting of her own volition, disagreed and denied the city’s request. She found that the Minnesota Constitution requires the city to show individualized suspicion of a housing code violation in order to get a warrant. The Court of Appeals then reversed Judge Robiner’s decision and found that the government can enter renters’ homes without any evidence that anything is wrong inside.

    “In today’s decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals and found that the Minnesota Constitution does not require individualized suspicion of a housing code violation before the government can get a warrant to inspect a rental home. The court followed a fifty-year old case from the U.S. Supreme Court which interpreted the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Minnesota court concluded that there was “no principled basis for interpreting Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution to require greater protection of tenants than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution under these circumstances.” But, the court did temper this ruling with procedural protections for tenants that the U.S. Supreme Court has not mandated before. These protections make Minnesota’s tenant protections against administrative warrants stronger than those under any other state constitution, despite the overall loss.

    ““Tenants should enjoy the same level of privacy in their homes as homeowners,” said Jason Wiebesick, a defendant in the case. “They just want to be left alone. The city shouldn’t be able to force its way into innocent people’s homes just because they think they can.”

    “While the majority concluded that individualized probable cause is not necessary to obtain a warrant when a tenant objects, two justices disagreed. Justice G. Barry Anderson, joined in part by Justice David Stras, wrote an impassioned and scholarly dissent, dissecting the majority’s historical analysis of both the Fourth Amendment and the Minnesota Constitution. Writing for himself he stated “the City’s interest does not outweigh the significant privacy intrusion of the search, particularly when the City has not shown that alternative means are inadequate to achieve the City’s interest.” He also noted, in describing the proposed warrant, that “it is difficult to conceive of a more invasive search, and it is a search authorized without the traditional protections afforded by the requirement of probable cause.”

    “Golden Valley’s rental ordinance allows city inspectors to enter every part of renters’ homes to inspect for things like cleanliness. Other Minnesota cities have similar programs allowing city inspectors—sometimes accompanied by police officers—to obtain warrants to inspect rental properties against the wishes of landlords and tenants. The cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, Bloomington and Woodbury all mandate inspections, irrespective of whether there is evidence of a housing code violation.

    ““These types of rental inspection laws are an end-run around constitutional protections on warrants, searches and seizures,” said IJ attorney Meagan Forbes. “If our constitutional protections mean anything, it’s that the government cannot enter your home without evidence there is something wrong.””

    1. Donald Trump’s War Crimes
      by Marjorie Cohn
      Professor Emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law

      “Just two and a half months into his presidency, Donald Trump has already distinguished himself as a war criminal. His administration is killing unusually large numbers of civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law.”

      1. You left out Hillary, the woman who destroyed Libya. It’s six years later, and Libya is still in chaos. There are even reports that black slavery has returned to Libya. Trump has to be given credit for putting an end to the CIA jihadist proxy war launched by Obama (with Hillary’s support, of course) against secular Syria in 2012. Only Putin’s intervention prevented the extermination of the Christians and Alawites and jihadist rule in Syria.

  12. Don’t for a moment think these are spontaneous comments. As with the Boy Scouts, Trump designs the speech to get an outraged response. He’s not going to lose support from it. How much more can he lose anyway? But he knows his base eats it up. The media will play them over and over again, as it will play his future “gaffes”. Trump doesn’t care. I think the mid-terms may be the only thing to get him to change.

    1. Unfortunately at times the Presidency requires a filter between what he is thinking and what comes out of his mouth. His heart was in the right place, but his words were ill timed. On the other hand I prefer this transparency over the lies that we saw with Obama or would have seen with Hillary Clinton.

      Many on the left demanded transparency, but now that they got it they hate it. They prefer to believe in a mission towards slavery such as ” if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor’.

      1. The United States is responsible for many of the technologies you use for posting such garbage. You should protest, then, by ceasing to use these technologies.

      1. I met some of those people holding the sign in the picture above. They are a bunch of crazies that associate with low life killers and those that believe they can stone women to death.

    1. I.C.

      Frank started the Philadelphia Police League for Retarded Citizens – so that they could learn every aspect of

    1. Yada yada, Trump’s wrong. Let’s have a look under the hood on this one. Municipal law enforcement agencies occasionally pay awards in civil suits brought against them and their officers for police misconduct. If The Professor is right, then Trump’s incitement could easily end up costing municipalities all across the country significant amounts of property-tax-payer money. How many tweet-torts can a Trumpa-lumpa’s tax dollars support?

      1. You don’t know Jack S*^* about working the streets, but you’ll be the first to complain why don’t the police do something when one of the skills jumps your a*^.

        1. That’s your very uninformed opinion. My opinion is that you’re a frightened, intolerant, small-minded, poorly-educated, self-hating bigot who fashions himself as a “keyboard warrior.”

          This directly to “great”

          1. Red-Herring AKA red, the one that thinks that pompous political speech is worse than treasoness activity, calling someone else’s opinion uninformed? What type of nutty politics is behind some of your more loonie statements?

            1. I’ll walk you through the process that free-thinkers use: 1) I read the subject statement and noted the factual assertions the author made. 2) Examined the original statement to which the author was responding, and noted there were no facts asserted from which the author could have reasonably inferred that the writer of the original statement was unaware of “working the street” or that the writer would “be the first to complain” if she were (presumably) assaulted by a “skill.” (?). 3) concluded that the author’s response to the original writer was not based on any facts or evidence, and therefore came to a conclusion that it was indeed, “uninformed.” You’re welcome. Now you may try it.

              1. Red-Herring Mark, I believe this response is probably written to someone else but I note you seem to be referring to yourself as a free thinker. If free thinker means loony then you are correct, but if it means what most people think it means then you made a bad joke.

                1. My reply to TGZ was the last reply on the thread after I posted. Likewise, TGZ’s post–the one to which I replied–was the last post on the thread when I read it.

        2. I do love it when a man in uniform defends my honor as a woman. Do you tango as well as Mr. Duvall does?

Comments are closed.