Miami-Dade Police Officer Will Not Be Charged Over Slapping Woman at Airport

The Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office has decided that the police officer who slapped at woman at Miami International Airport last year will not be charged.  Officer Antonio Clemente Rodriguez slapped Paris Anderson without, in my view, proper justification or cause. This would seem a clear case of battery, but Rodriguez was allowed to retire with back pay after being removed from the force.

The June 2020 confrontation was captured on video.

Police say that Anderson was mad about a flight and intoxicated. She is seen arguing with Rodriguez and another Miami-Dade police officer. At one point, she says “You acting like you white when you really Black? What you going to do?”

Rodriguez then strikes her in the face and she is brought to the ground by other officers and arrested. She was charged with felony battery of a law-enforcement officer.

That charge was entirely abusive and unsupported.  While prosecutors soon dropped that case, no one seems concerned that there was never any reasonable basis for the charge and there was a videotape that clearly established that fact. It is not clear which officers supported the meritless charge or whether any were sanctioned as a result.

Prosecutor Sandra Miller-Batiste determined that Rodriguez had “no duty to retreat,” and that it was not unreasonable for him to believe that he was in danger. I disagree. Anderson is rude and unruly but she is not presenting a physical threat to the officer. The slap was entirely unjustified and seems more a response to the insult than any threat.

The police department initially sought to fire Rodriguez but the South Florida Police Benevolent Association successfully opposed the termination. After  arbitration, Rodriguez was allowed to retire and claim back pay.

Under Florida law, this would seem an open-and-shut case of battery:

784.03 Battery; felony battery.

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:

1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Again, I do not see the exercise of any privilege or justification by the officer. He was being verbally abused and then took violent action. The police manual states that “[f]orce can be used against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend one’s self or others from the imminent use or threat of unlawful force.”

These encounters show how much we demand from officers. This is a tough job. They often face abusive and insulting treatment from citizens but are trained not react or escalate the situation. Indeed, under the Miami-Dade police manual, officers are expected to deescalate such confrontations:

De-escalation: The strategic slowing down of an incident in a manner that allows officers more time, distance, space and tactical flexibility in which to assess the unpredictable, dynamic nature of a police scene. Applying de-escalation skills increases the potential for resolving the situation with minimal force or no force at all, reducing the likelihood of injury to the public, increasing officer safety, and mitigating the immediacy of potential or ongoing threats. Some examples of deescalation strategies include proportionality, using distance and cover, tactical repositioning, slowing down situations that do not pose an immediate threat (tactical pause), engaging communication, subject containment, and calling for supervisory and other resources( i.e., backup officers, crisis managers, family members, clergy, etc.).

That takes a great deal of training and control by officers but it is an essential part of their job. They are trained to overcome the natural inclination to react in this way. Officers are given the authority to use lethal force and, as part of that power, they are expected to exercise greater levels of restraint than we would expect from average citizens.

This criminal case began with a clearly meritless charge of battery against Anderson. That alone is chilling when it was the officer, not Anderson, who committed the battery in my view.

149 thoughts on “Miami-Dade Police Officer Will Not Be Charged Over Slapping Woman at Airport”

  1. “Biggest liar on the blog above.”

    Anonymous the Stupid, how does it feel to have your wings cut.

    I respond in a new post because your wings were cut twice.

  2. Evil countries are not entitled to security guarantees. They are only entitled to be bombed. Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum by invading Eastern Ukraine and annexing Crimea, resulting in 14,000 dead…an evil act of aggression. Putin is the aggressor. Period.

  3. I totally disagree with JT. If verbal abuse and insults are “fair game” directed at police officers, it will be demoralizing and many good officers will just leave the profession.

    JT, you consistently back away from the responsibility to uphold norms of civility that cannot be adequately enshrined in the penal code.
    This shows a misunderstanding of social behavior and its consequences. Without public civility, there is not much chance of keeping our Republic (to quote Franklin).

    This woman, inebriated, made a shockingly racist accusation in hopes of manipulating a police officer. She deserved to het whacked.

    1. If that was your wife, daughter, mother, sister, aunt, best friend would it be okay for a police officer to assault them? What the lady did verbally abusing the officer was wrong but did not warrant him striking her. De-escalation should have been used.

  4. A member of the blog is decrying the off-topic nature of many of the comments. I agree. He is right. People should remain on topic. But do they? No. Sometimes we have to live with the forces of nature.

    Not only is this list off-topic, but so is the Jan 6 committee off-topic, as is the news media and most of the leftist babbling we hear all over the place.

    Since off-topic complaints are in vogue, I thought one should note how the Democrats handle their own business. The Jan 6 committee is Democrats plus Republicans chosen by Democrats who refused permission for knowledgeable Republicans to be on the committee. Why? Because Democrats don’t want to investigate Jan 6, rather, they wish to promote lies and deception.

    A key witness was called before the kangaroo panel to testify about Jan 6. He wants his testimony released to the public. I think he wants to demonstrate the BS the Democrats promote in the dark and lie about in the daytime.

    Justthenews.com provides a bit of insight into what is going on behind closed doors. JTN says, “key Trump administration official interrogated for five hours by the House Jan 6 committee is calling on the Democrat-led panel to release his interview transcript, saying investigators spent more time questioning him on military matters like President Biden’s bungled Afghanistan withdrawal than the Capitol riots.”

    Democrats are abusive. Former Pentagon chief of staff Kash Patel had to spend time and money preparing for his appearance and the timeline he prepared, but the Democrats weren’t interested. Instead, they wasted his money and time on questions unrelated to Jan 6. Not only that, but Democrats lied as well. I will end by copying one paragraph of what Patel said.

    “Schiff “is the same guy that read the Steele dossier into the Congressional Record in front of the world, saying it was one of the greatest documents ever produced,” he added. “This same guy now goes and gets the member of Congress’s email or text and changes the verbiage, the punctuation, the grammar and the length and puts it up for the world to see.”

    We are dealing with a Democrat Party that has disavowed its love for America and the American people. Come next election, everyone should disavow the Democrat Party and not vote for any Democrats, whether a dog catcher up to the presidency itself.

  5. Putin is wrong. Evil countries such as his do not get to enjoy the same rights that good countries enjoy, including the right of self-defense. Hitler’s Germany didn’t have the right of self defense, as much as it tried to defend itself fromthe good countries. The only right that evil countries have is the right to be defeated good countries. Good countries surrounding and threatening evil countries is a good thing. That’s why people who make the moral equivalence of “how would America like it if Russia put missiles in Mexico?” are idiots, and they should sit in the corner for being the dunces they are. Good countries can threaten evil countries. Evil countries should not threaten good countries, and that is that.

  6. I repeat: If anyone is brave enough to debate what this conservative writer has *written*, I’ll be happy to defend his *arguments*.

    1. I’d like to know the substance of Goldberg’s arguments, Jeff. Take a specific point and then demonstrate what he has said to prove that point. In the meantime, I will repeat what I said because that alone answers some of what Goldberg has written. Then I will bring up one of the points that can be extracted from my statement, which is based on what Goldberg has written.

      “Jonah Goldberg is an a$$, not because of lack of intelligence rather his naiveté of why TV exists. It exists to make money. The money comes in not based on the people involved rather the numbers of people watching. Goldberg is not interesting as a Never Trumper and not the most exciting guy on anything. His books are good, but books don’t necessarily translate to good TV. Even his article was dull, lacking specific facts and an open mind. If one wants a Never Trumper, they can choose one of many stations on the left to listen to, and they won’t be Goldberg boring.”

      The question arises as to whether Goldberg’s complaint is due to restraint on Goldberg’s political views or because Goldberg’s continuous dialogue on an over-played Never Trumper dialogue is boring.

      1. I know better than to argue with you. Been there, done that. You can tell everyone that I’m running away from you as far and as fast as I can.

        1. jeffsilberman says: December 22, 2021 at 10:12 PM
          I repeat: If anyone is brave enough to debate what this conservative writer has *written*, I’ll be happy to defend his *arguments*.

          2.5 hours later, the Mouth of Marin County says:

          jeffsilberman says: December 23, 2021 at 12:35 AM
          I know better than to argue with you. Been there, done that. You can tell everyone that I’m running away from you as far and as fast as I can.

          you walked right into it.

          fick·le (fĭk′əl)
          adj.
          Characterized by erratic changeableness or instability, especially with regard to affections or attachments; capricious.
          [Middle English fikel, from Old English ficol, deceitful.]

          I wish S. Meyer would stop engaging trolls but I have to give him credit for wearing them out, as in the above.

          So congrats to S. Meyer, perhaps the blog’s secret weapon

          😉

          1. Everyone knows that I don’t argue with S.Meyer. I avoid him like Covid. The invitation is open to everyone else.

            1. Jeff, why the sudden change in attitude? We talked together nicely for several posts, and I responded politely to your challenge. Indeed you can defend your position with a free and polite exchange of ideas, right? You are an attorney who was formerly trained in a legal debate, so I can’t understand this recent change in position since that legal training should stack the cards in your favor.

              I guess that is why you insult Turley. You know he won’t respond. If he were to respond, you would say, everyone knows I don’t argue with Turley because he owns the blog and controls everything. When asked to list the most illegal things Trump did in office, you failed to respond as well, and that is why you refused to post to me.

              I don’t accept vitriol for vitriol’s sake. I will continuously ask for proof until a case is adequately made. Vitriol alone makes you a hollow and weak individual.

              What you are really looking for is a monologue, not dialogue. You failed to make your case, and you failed at debate. That is clear to everyone.

              1. Meyer,

                Say what you will about me, but I will no longer engage with you at length. I give up. You win.

                My invitation is still open to anyone who wishes to debate the merits of Goldberg’s argument about “Whataboutism”:

                “During the Trump years a lot of people found safe harbor in changing the subject or playing tu quoque games. It only makes sense. If you can’t defend something indefensible, bring up something the other side did that’s not defensible either and talk about that. To any inconvenient charge or fact about Trump, his defenders would respond, “What about …?” the Democrats, Antifa, Hillary, the New York Times, Barack Obama, Hunter Biden, the designated hitter rule, whatever.

                There are three chief advantages to such rhetorical tactics. First, we live in an idiotic age where people believe that the alleged hypocrisy of a critic nullifies the merit of criticism. A parent who smokes is a hypocrite for telling his kid not to smoke—but that doesn’t mean the kid should therefore smoke.

                Second, it’s what the audience wants to hear. And no “principle” explains cable news opinion shows more than “the customer is always right.” The Fox audience craved permission to be saved from its own cognitive dissonance and whataboutism as an exit ramp from having to confront the actual facts.

                Finally, it lets you avoid explicitly lying. You just don’t answer the question that matters by pointing out the flaws of the other team.”

                I have NEVER challenged the VALIDITY of Turley’s criticism of the MSM; my only complaint is his hypocrisy in not applying the same standard to his employer, Fox News. I accuse Turley of only the 3rd rhetorical tactic. He only points out the flaws among Fox’s cable competitors.

                1. “Say what you will about me, but I will no longer engage with you at length. I give up. You win.”

                  I was nice. You were not. As I said, you want a monologue. You are not interested in diverse opinions. You only want to hear your own voice over and over again.

                  Even your latest attempt to insult everyone on the net that disagrees with you is filled with empty rhetoric. Most don’t want to get into another one of your senseless arguments. You want to hear your own voice while avoiding facts and logic.

                  You have plenty of time for nonsense but none for honest, diverse debate. You prefer to make things personal.

                  Even now, you are backpedaling. You want to choose who you will debate with, which is typical of the leftist mind (see the makeup of the Jan 6 committee). Add that you narrowed the goalposts in an attempt to only argue about “Goldberg’s argument about “Whataboutism” when your actual argument was about Fox News and your belief in their lack of diversity. You can’t face your own words. You know they are based on your feelings and emotions, not logic and fact.

                  The “whataboutism” is you, not the other guy. You now claim, “During the Trump years, a lot of people found safe harbor in changing the subject,” but they didn’t change the subject you did, and often Goldberg did. Goldberg got personal because he had a different view of conservativism that Trump was changing. That irritated some conservatives, but many have since found that Trump was right. Goldberg found this changing environment too uncomfortable, so he and others split away. I say good riddance because I haven’t seen that group of Never Trumpers do much of anything, and we already know that when you can’t stand the heat, you split as well.

                  You are left using the rhetorical tactics that used to work for the left but aren’t working as well today. That is what the rest of your post is about, failing tactics of the left.

                  Grow up, Jeff. Be a man.

        2. Jeff, you are staying put, not running away. In my responses, I provided enough information to lay to rest any ideas you had that you could defend Goldberg’s op-ed. I don’t think he could either. I have to give you credit for immediately recognizing that you have a losing position. It’s wise to fold early in the game when you know you have a losing hand.

          I am happy that I was able to dispose of your errant ideas so quickly. You might still hold them, but at least you recognize your inability to defend them.

            1. Jeff, how was that flattering myself. I flattered you defending your image by saying, “you are staying put, not running away.” Now, suddenly you pressed on the gas. Suddenly you recognize that your arguments are empty.

              We all understand how you feel. You want to run away, but you cannot erase your words. Forget about it, Jeff. We understand—no need to run and hide. The damage is done. All you have to do is be able to defend silly arguments. As a lawyer, that should be easy. We all have confidence in you, so give it a go again.

              I’m listening…

    2. jeffsilberman,
      Seriously Jeff, why don’t you start your own blog so you can pick the discussion topics instead of being an unethical internet troll trying to hijack other blogs, or are you too much of a coward to stick your neck out there for other internet trolls to attack like you attack Turley.

      Your choices have consequences and what you’re doing in Turley threads shows a lack of character and morals, this kind of behavior will eat you up.

        1. Jeff, you obviously have a point of view you want to push several times a day. You don’t want to debate it or advance it. You only want to say it over and over again. Just like Jonah Goldberg, you are boring.

          Start your own blog. It will be good for you, and no one will question what you say. You can copy and paste throughout the day, especially when you become agitated. You can call it the Boring Blog and recommend it for people with insomnia. Don’t expect to be placed on any TV station because they rely on awake people and want them to spend money and buy their products.

  7. Young says:

    “Alex Berenson is suing Twitter. Here’s his Complaint.
    https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/berenson-v-twitter/comments
    I wish him luck. I said before that when these companies went from being neutral bulletin boards to censors they put themselves at risk and that is particularly true when they act as a cat’s paw for government.”

    It seems to me- and do correct me if I am wrong- but I’m thinking that Young’s comments are off-topic. OFF-TOPIC?

    Where’s the outrage from the Trumpist pearl-clutches? I’m talking directly to you:

    WenBars
    Witherspoon
    Whig98
    Monumentcolorado

    Hypocrites one and all.

    BTW, in my own off-topic post, I neglected to provide the link to the Jonah Goldberg article:

    “Donald Trump’s Megaphone-
    Fox News news hosts knew that Trump’s lies were lies—and they amplified them anyhow.”

    https://gfile.thedispatch.com/p/donald-trumps-megaphone?fbclid=IwAR2ZYkcCTpOk8XC_TiFdANjSeoaYUa5becSOp8Y5WL1b-9To_1faQkiBGzQ

    If anyone is brave enough to debate what this conservative writer has written, I’ll be happy to *defend* his arguments. That’s if any of you are up to it…

    1. Jonah Goldberg is an a$$, not because of lack of intelligence rather his naiveté of why TV exists. It exists to make money. The money comes in not based on the people involved rather the numbers of people watching. Goldberg is not interesting as a Never Trumper and not the most exciting guy on anything. His books are good, but books don’t necessarily translate to good TV. Even his article was dull, lacking specific facts and an open mind. If one wants a Never Trumper, they can choose one of many stations on the left to listen to, and they won’t be Goldberg boring.

    2. jeffsilberman wrote, “It seems to me- and do correct me if I am wrong- but I’m thinking that Young’s comments are off-topic. OFF-TOPIC?”

      This is rich; an off-topic hijacking internet troll complaining about another off-topic hijacking internet troll.

      jeffsilberman wrote, “Where’s the outrage? I’m talking directly to you… Witherspoon. Hypocrites one and all.

      An unethical, off-topic, morally bankrupt, hijacking internet troll calling me a hypocrite; that’s interesting. Maybe you should actually give those you accuse of hypocrisy a reasonable opportunity to actually see and respond to comments like that before you go off like a half baked drunk and start falsely calling others hypocrites.

      FYI: I don’t live for the commentary in this blog, I have a real life. If I don’t happen to comment on something that an arrogant a$$hat troll like you happens to think I should be commenting on, well that’s just tough sh!t troll, I don’t wade through hundreds of comments to please the likes of you. Bite me troll.

  8. Anonymous the Stupid, you say every attack I make against Svelaz is dishonest, but you are unable to show it. Many have proven you to be dishonest and a liar. You are not to be trusted and that is well-known.

      1. If he makes it past motions to dismiss and for summary judgment a jury is more likely to be generous with damages. The injunction, if granted, would have to come from the judge ‘s authority.

        1. I agree about the jury.

          I’m not sure of how motions to dismiss and summary judgement play out or how far up the ladder one can go if the judges throw the case out. I would have liked to have seen some of the details but it is behind a paywall and not worth it.

            1. Thanks. I think Berenson is going along the lines of Philip Hamburger.

              However, I don’t think this distinction, “Twitter the company and Twitter the platform.”, was ever considered there or on this blog. By separating the two, the idea of interfering with private property might become more palatable to some that have adopted a very suffocating brand of libertarianism.

              1. I think their brand of libertarianism is a disguise for protecting censorship. Most hete are more authoritarians than libertarians.

              2. “By separating the two, the idea of interfering with private property might become more palatable to some that have adopted a very suffocating brand of libertarianism.”

                Oh, dear! That is a worrisome observation! Sounds Great Reset-ish.

    1. You’ve got to be kidding me!

      After all the open condemnation of others posting comments that are completely off-topic we have another internet troll trying to hijack the comment thread with multiple blatantly off topic comments? What’s also disturbing is the number of commenters that swallowed the trolling bait and jumped right in to the sub-thread and extend the hijacking; why?!

      Young,
      If you’re using an everybody does it rationalization, #1 on the unethical rationalization list, to try an justify your intentional deflection then you’re being just as unethical as the other internet trolls engaging in this kind of intentional hijacking.

      This kind of nonsense needs to stop.

      In the words of Ramesses II…

      “So let it be written, so let it be done.”

      1. “This kind of nonsense [OT] needs to stop.”

        Suppose you go to a campground. There’s a list of rules. But there is no rule prohibiting walking a dog on a leash. The campground owner does not admonish campers who walk their dog on a leash, though he has seen countless do so.

        Then some *camper* starts screaming at people: “How dare you walk your dog on a leash?!”

        What would you call that person? The name “Karen” comes to mind.

        1. Sam,
          So you want to play the analogy game, eh?

          Well Sam, you analogy is truly lacking. Try this one on for size…

          Suppose you go to a campground. There’s a list of rules, but there’s no rule prohibiting building of real homes on real foundations in the campsites. The campground owner does not admonish home builders though he has seen countless do so. Then some *camper* starts screaming at the ones building the homes: “Stop building homes in the campground, that’s not what campsites are for, plus you’re abusive activity is destroying civility with other campers in the campground!” What would you call that person?

          I’d call them a courageous person willing to stand up for what’s right and stand against those that are intentionally abusing an oversight in the rules.

          Thanks for playing the analogy game Sam, it was fun.

          1. Steve,

            Interesting legal issue. Are laws or rules that you think ought to have been but aren’t still laws and rules?

            Can you enforce a rule against smoking where there is no rule against smoking?

            1. Sam,
              Of course you can’t legally enforce a rule/law that is not stated but you can socially enforce a rule that is implied via a social or cultural “norm”. This is really not a legal issue in any way shape or form, it’s a social norms, cultural norms, and maturity issue. Immature internet trolls are all acting well outside of social and cultural norms, their pure jerks and behave so immaturely that they appear to be 7th or 8th grade middle school bullies. What do you do to bullies; you don’t enable them, you confront them!

              1. Found another error, grammar this time; I used their instead of they’re as a result of bad editing.

                “they’re pure jerks and behave so immaturely that they appear to be 7th or 8th grade middle school bullies”.

                1. Steve- I knew you meant me and I overlooked the grammar. I knew you know better and it was just an easy mistake to make in informal writing. I do it too sometimes.

              2. “. . . a social or cultural ‘norm’.”

                So a cultural norm is acceptable when you agree with it? But not acceptable when it’s (OT) actually a cultural (blog) norm?

                Your authoritarian slip is showing.

          2. “. . . there’s no rule prohibiting building of real homes on real foundations in the campsites. The campground owner does not admonish home builders . . .”

            “Then some *camper* starts screaming . . .”

            “What would you call that person?”

            Still “Karen.” He doesn’t own the campground — but likes to pretend he does.

            1. Sam wrote, “Still “Karen.” He doesn’t own the campground — but likes to pretend he does.”, “Your authoritarian slip is showing.”

              I honestly can’t fix the kind of ignorance based stupidity that your comments are currently representing.

              How dare those civil rights protesters in the 1960’s take to the streets and scream about what they thought was wrong and standing up for what they thought was right. Those evil authoritarians.

        1. Young asks:

          “Steve,
          When did you take over for Silberman?”

          He has proven not to be the hypocrite I supposed he was. He is consistent. He is, of course, incorrect, but that is beside the point for there is no blog rule against off-topic comments. It would be a betrayal of Turley’s free speech principles to remove off-topic comments. After all, who is to say that a comment is off-topic? Steve Witherspoon? Who elected him to decide what is and what is not off-topic. It’s just one man’s opinion. A seemingly off-topic comment could be right on point.

          I contend that Turley’s dredging up an obscure and trivial altercation between a cop and a woman is off-topic given that the topic foremost in most people’s minds at present is the 1/6 investigation! Will Trump be charged with any crimes in attempting to delay or otherwise obstruct a Constitutionally mandated transfer of presidential power?

          On this Congressional investigation, Turley to date has authored but 1 *on-topic* article….

      2. “commenters that swallowed the trolling bait and jumped right in to the sub-thread and extend the hijacking; why?!”

        Because it was interesting.

  9. If a male had aggressed like that into a female officer’s face, and she had slapped him, people would be cheering and the aggressor would be charged with a crime.

  10. There were a whole lot of people like this woman at the Jan. 6 riot in D.C.

    What really happened on Jan. 6?

    Toxic, hyperactive, extremist activists either made their own way or were directed by some group (i.e. the FBI) to D.C.

    Ray Epps and Tim Gionet, aka Baked Alaska, are two such bad actors.

  11. A MAN HAD TO ANSWER FOR THE WICKED THAT HE DONE

    Beer For My Horses

    Well a man come on the 6 o’clock news
    Said somebody’s been shot, somebody’s been abused
    Somebody blew up a building, somebody stole a car
    Somebody got away, somebody didn’t get too far yeah
    They didn’t get too far

    Grandpappy told my pappy, back in my day, son
    A man had to answer for the wicked that he done
    Take all the rope in Texas find a tall oak tree,
    Round up all them bad boys hang them high in the street
    For all the people to see

    We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds
    Too much corruption, and crime in the streets
    It’s time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground
    Send ’em all to their maker and he’ll settle ’em down
    You can bet he’ll set ’em down

    ‘Cause justice is the one thing you should always find
    You got to saddle up your boys, you got to draw a hard line
    When the gun smoke settles we’ll sing a victory tune
    We’ll all meet back at the local saloon
    And we’ll raise up our glasses against evil forces singing
    Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses

    – Toby Keith

  12. The perfect analogy for America.

    If America had stood fast against centuries of the rabid, insidious, and incremental-but-incessant machinations of insolent, parasitic, dependent leeches, the vote would be restricted to capable, self-reliant, actual Americans by responsible State legislatures that stepped into the breach and held the line, and there would be no American communist welfare state today. America would be a precise and “more perfect” reflection of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, facilitating true freedom and free enterprise. There would be no communist redistribution, social engineering, infinite “free stuff,” taxation for anything other than “…general [ALL] Welfare…,” or regulation beyond “…money, commerce and land and naval Forces.” It will be a difficult, laborious and sanguine task to recover the nation for true, patriotic and constitutional Americans.

    If only America had immediately and firmly rejected the dependent parasites and their apologists when they first emerged, clearly demonstrating its immutable resolve to support the Constitution in a society of laws.

  13. Get over it. The charges against the woman were dropped and the officer was forced to retire. He effectively lost his job over less than a second of his career and the woman he slapped still gets to run around with an entitled attitude and probably is still as bitchy as ever. It’s a wash.

    1. “AH, THE LEGACY OF ‘CRAZY ABE'”

      Did you say, “Entitled?” Apparently, that woman was not even supposed to be there.

      After Chief Justice Roger B. Taney struck down “Crazy Abe’s” suspension of habeas corpus, and upon the issuance of the eminently unconstitutional emancipation proclamation in 1863, freed black slaves must have been immediately and compassionately repatriated, aka summarily deported, per the Naturalization Act of 1802 which was in full force and effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)….” Immigration law and the Constitution were ignored and not adhered to by the executive or judicial branches. “Crazy Abe” was a constitutional criminal of high office and a statutory criminal of mass murder.

      If President Lincoln might break the law to pursue personal interests and desires, so may President Trump, and every other American. President Trump should have declared martial law (e.g., before the 2020 election was stolen), as Lincoln did, and run the country as a dictator, as Lincoln did.

      America is a society of laws…or not.

Leave a Reply