Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. The Backpedaling Has Begun

 

Representative Jim Clyburn is not stupid. He knows any link between the Defund the Police movement to the mainstream Democrat party is political suicide.

Notice the phrase “Clyburn’s comment put him firmly in line with almost every Democrat in both chambers of Congress, as well as the party’s presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden.” However, if you dig deep enough, even the reforms called for by some Democrats contain elements that would weaken law enforcement. No, the Democrats are up to their old trick of hiding their true intentions, and conservatives need to shine the spotlight of truth on them, as Rush likes to say.

Republicans need to fully expose this connection of defunding the police and Democrat politicians and exploit it to remind voters which party wants to take away their guns, and now their police forces as well.

I’d like to see this commercial:

A black family is sitting at home. Mom is helping the children with their homework as Dad is reading the paper. A loud noise forces the mother to get up and go look out the window.

“Jamaal,” she says. “There’s a gang of teenagers on our front lawn. They’re smoking dope and they lit our mailbox on fire. Call the-“

She pauses and Jamaal says, “We eliminated the police department, remember? It was what our candidate promised she would do.”

The wife looks forlorn, then says, “My God, now I wish we had voted for the Republican.”

Published in Elections
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 16 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RightAngles Member

    “Quick! Call the …Social Workers! They can have them talk about their FEEEEElings”

    • #1
    • June 14, 2020, at 1:34 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  2. Stad Coolidge
    Stad

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    “Quick! Call the …Social Workers! They can have them talk about their FEEEEElings”

    But why? They’re “Nothing more than feeeeeeeelings . . .”

    Dang it, I cannot sing to save my life.

    • #2
    • June 14, 2020, at 1:43 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  3. Brandon Member

    I would actually argue that the revolution, to the extent there ever was one, is already over. Now we just have disparate fragments of broken ideologies fighting for dying embers. The progressive elite was all gung-ho right until they were able to maximize political traction out of the protesters and rioters. Then, when the real lunatic “defund the police” crowd got the megaphone, Pelosi and crew abandoned ship faster than rats off the Titanic. This is the cycle of revolution. They often start with vague but good intentions (police reform), are unable to coalesce around a unifying concept (how do we want to reform?), loose control of the narrative to the most aggressive but least disciplined (Antifa types), and then unravel into a chaotic situation than the one they were fighting in the first place (riots/burning cities). The French Revolution is a prime example. This one seems to be following suit.

    Really make you appreciate the incredible leadership prowess of MLK. He took a tinderbox of a situation and provided clear, moral leadership with clear goals and an incredibly smart plan to unify folks around that goal. If you ever get a chance, read “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, which is, for my money, the best piece of non-fiction in the American literary canon. What will stick out immediately is how King persuades his target audience. His primary method of persuasion is to remind the audience that he doesn’t think they are evil. Actually, he thinks that they are better than the behavior they are turning a blind eye to. King also makes a specific attempt to resolve racial conflict within the framework of America’s founding. Beautifully written and still just as moving today.

    • #3
    • June 14, 2020, at 2:26 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  4. Stina Member

    Stad: However, if you dig deep enough, even the reforms called for by some Democrats contain elements that would weaken law enforcement.

    Some necessary reforms will weaken the police. While I question the Dems direction, it is not necessarily that they weaken the police, but in what ways they do so and who is empowered by it.

    For instance, no-knock raids need to go. If an innocent homeowner is the victim of a no knock raid and attempts to defend himself with a gun, he has no recourse. Police attempting to get into your home should require producing a warrant before entering.

    If that means allowing criminals go free, that’s how are justice system is set up. Protecting the innocent was of a higher order than empowering government.

    • #4
    • June 14, 2020, at 5:19 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  5. Brandon Member

    Stina (View Comment):

    Stad: However, if you dig deep enough, even the reforms called for by some Democrats contain elements that would weaken law enforcement.

    Some necessary reforms will weaken the police. While I question the Dems direction, it is not necessarily that they weaken the police, but in what ways they do so and who is empowered by it.

    For instance, no-knock raids need to go. If an innocent homeowner is the victim of a no knock raid and attempts to defend himself with a gun, he has no recourse. Police attempting to get into your home should require producing a warrant before entering.

    If that means allowing criminals go free, that’s how are justice system is set up. Protecting the innocent was of a higher order than empowering government.

     

    While we’re at it, let’s take a look at how one get’s a search warrant and how they use it. In the raid that killed Breonna Taylor, they had a search warrant, but the warrant was issued on the flimsiest of evidence. Evidently, the police saw the vehicle of a known drug deal parked near her home for several days. Parked near her home. That was enough to get a warrant to bust down her door in the middle of the night and open fire without saying a word.

    • #5
    • June 14, 2020, at 6:48 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  6. Stad Coolidge
    Stad

    M. Brandon Godbey (View Comment):
    Really makes you appreciate the incredible leadership prowess of MLK. He took a tinderbox of a situation and provided clear, moral leadership with clear goals and an incredibly smart plan to unify folks around that goal.

    Well put. The leaders of these new movements aren’t really concerned with blacks lives, or any lives for that matter. If anything, they’re equal opportunity rioters, looters, arsonists, and murderers. I would really like to hear what Dr. King would say about all this mess. My guess is if he did come back and speak to us, the rioters et al. would ignore him and throw anoither brick, possibly at Dr. King . . .

    • #6
    • June 15, 2020, at 6:55 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  7. Stad Coolidge
    Stad

    Stina (View Comment):

    For instance, no-knock raids need to go. If an innocent homeowner is the victim of a no knock raid and attempts to defend himself with a gun, he has no recourse. Police attempting to get into your home should require producing a warrant before entering.

    If that means allowing criminals go free, that’s how are justice system is set up. Protecting the innocent was of a higher order than empowering government.

    I agree. I’m also not keen on the idea of 3 AM raids either. Put the two together (early morning and no-knock) along with the chance of an address mixup, and you have the makings of a disaster . . .

    • #7
    • June 15, 2020, at 6:56 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  8. Stad Coolidge
    Stad

    M. Brandon Godbey (View Comment):
    the police saw the vehicle of a known drug deal parked near her home for several days. Parked near her home.

    Which means nothing unless someone goes from the van to the home, or the other way around. I would say not only the police, but the judge approving the warrant should be held accountable . . .

    • #8
    • June 15, 2020, at 6:59 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  9. Ammo.com Member

    The Motte-and-bailey is a tactic frequently employed by opportunists and dishonest actors. Everyone should be aware of it and learn to recognize when it is being employed.

     

     

    • #9
    • June 15, 2020, at 4:30 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Stina (View Comment):

    Stad: However, if you dig deep enough, even the reforms called for by some Democrats contain elements that would weaken law enforcement.

    Some necessary reforms will weaken the police. While I question the Dems direction, it is not necessarily that they weaken the police, but in what ways they do so and who is empowered by it.

    For instance, no-knock raids need to go. If an innocent homeowner is the victim of a no knock raid and attempts to defend himself with a gun, he has no recourse. Police attempting to get into your home should require producing a warrant before entering.

    If that means allowing criminals go free, that’s how are justice system is set up. Protecting the innocent was of a higher order than empowering government.

    Yeah, there are a number of reforms that would “weaken” police that I would support. Sobriety checkpoints, for one. If someone is driving erratically, fine, pull them over. But to pull over 100 or more cars who just happen to be driving down a certain road at a certain time to see if you can find something wrong (doesn’t have to be intoxication, they may check or insurance, expired tabs, etc.) is an obvious 4th Amendment violation. Civil Asset Forfeiture should also be recognized as a clear violation. If you convict someone of a crime and seize assets that are proven to have been used to commit the crime — or assets that were gained through the crime — that is fine. But CAF allows police departments to steal property from people just because a cop has a hunch that you don’t seem like the type of person who could have honestly earned what you have in your possession. It’s then up to you to sue the police department to get your stuff back and prove that you didn’t get it through criminal activity.

    There are people who want to “weaken” the police because they sympathize with criminals. But there are also a lot of decent, law-abiding people who want reforms because some police forces in some states treat people like sheep to be sheared.

    • #10
    • June 21, 2020, at 8:46 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  11. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Stad: However, if you dig deep enough, even the reforms called for by some Democrats contain elements that would weaken law enforcement.

    Some necessary reforms will weaken the police. While I question the Dems direction, it is not necessarily that they weaken the police, but in what ways they do so and who is empowered by it.

    For instance, no-knock raids need to go. If an innocent homeowner is the victim of a no knock raid and attempts to defend himself with a gun, he has no recourse. Police attempting to get into your home should require producing a warrant before entering.

    If that means allowing criminals go free, that’s how are justice system is set up. Protecting the innocent was of a higher order than empowering government.

    Yeah, there are a number of reforms that would “weaken” police that I would support. Sobriety checkpoints, for one. If someone is driving erratically, fine, pull them over. But to pull over 100 or more cars who just happen to be driving down a certain road at a certain time to see if you can find something wrong (doesn’t have to be intoxication, they may check or insurance, expired tabs, etc.) is an obvious 4th Amendment violation. Civil Asset Forfeiture should also be recognized as a clear violation. If you convict someone of a crime and seize assets that are proven to have been used to commit the crime — or assets that were gained through the crime — that is fine. But CAF allows police departments to steal property from people just because a cop has a hunch that you don’t seem like the type of person who could have honestly earned what you have in your possession. It’s then up to you to sue the police department to get your stuff back and prove that you didn’t get it through criminal activity.

    There are people who want to “weaken” the police because they sympathize with criminals. But there are also a lot of decent, law-abiding people who want reforms because some police forces in some states treat people like sheep to be sheared.

    I agree here. The world seems to be where we have gross over reaction like in Atlanta, or massive abuse with no punishment. I wonder if the overreacting is a reflection of the underreacting

    • #11
    • June 21, 2020, at 9:09 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  12. Stad Coolidge
    Stad

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Stad: However, if you dig deep enough, even the reforms called for by some Democrats contain elements that would weaken law enforcement.

    Some necessary reforms will weaken the police. While I question the Dems direction, it is not necessarily that they weaken the police, but in what ways they do so and who is empowered by it.

    For instance, no-knock raids need to go. If an innocent homeowner is the victim of a no knock raid and attempts to defend himself with a gun, he has no recourse. Police attempting to get into your home should require producing a warrant before entering.

    If that means allowing criminals go free, that’s how are justice system is set up. Protecting the innocent was of a higher order than empowering government.

    Yeah, there are a number of reforms that would “weaken” police that I would support. Sobriety checkpoints, for one. If someone is driving erratically, fine, pull them over. But to pull over 100 or more cars who just happen to be driving down a certain road at a certain time to see if you can find something wrong (doesn’t have to be intoxication, they may check or insurance, expired tabs, etc.) is an obvious 4th Amendment violation. Civil Asset Forfeiture should also be recognized as a clear violation. If you convict someone of a crime and seize assets that are proven to have been used to commit the crime — or assets that were gained through the crime — that is fine. But CAF allows police departments to steal property from people just because a cop has a hunch that you don’t seem like the type of person who could have honestly earned what you have in your possession. It’s then up to you to sue the police department to get your stuff back and prove that you didn’t get it through criminal activity.

    There are people who want to “weaken” the police because they sympathize with criminals. But there are also a lot of decent, law-abiding people who want reforms because some police forces in some states treat people like sheep to be sheared.

    I agree. The same thing goes for license checks. Where is the probable cause to pull over people at a checkpoint just to see if they have a license or insurance (proof of auto insurance is a requirement here in SC)? It ties up traffic and creates ill will.

    Asset forfeiture bypasses due process, so it’s illegality should be a no-brainer. In criminal cases, the effect is to deprive the accused the ability to sell the asset to pay for his defense lawyers. Even if the asset is ill-gotten, it hasn’t been proven yet so he should be able to control it until convicted. One should also consider something like a house a shared asset with the wife, so taking it deprives her of it’s use, even if she wasn’t the one convicted.

    Maybe we should march against these injustices in South Dakota!

    • #12
    • June 21, 2020, at 2:57 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  13. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Stad (View Comment):
    Asset forfeiture bypasses due process, so it’s illegality should be a no-brainer. In criminal cases, the effect is to deprive the accused the ability to sell the asset to pay for his defense lawyers. Even if the asset is ill-gotten, it hasn’t been proven yet so he should be able to control it until convicted.

    I can also see when someone is arrested for some lucrative crime and the court freezes their bank accounts so the suspect can’t move their money to someplace unfindable. Not confiscate the money because the case hasn’t been proven yet, but freeze it until the case has been resolved. If the suspect is acquitted, he has full access to the funds again, if he is convicted the court can decide what the state may confiscate.

    • #13
    • June 21, 2020, at 3:30 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. Stad Coolidge
    Stad

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    Asset forfeiture bypasses due process, so it’s illegality should be a no-brainer. In criminal cases, the effect is to deprive the accused the ability to sell the asset to pay for his defense lawyers. Even if the asset is ill-gotten, it hasn’t been proven yet so he should be able to control it until convicted.

    I can also see when someone is arrested for some lucrative crime and the court freezes their bank accounts so the suspect can’t move their money to someplace unfindable. Not confiscate the money because the case hasn’t been proven yet, but freeze it until the case has been resolved. If the suspect is acquitted, he has full access to the funds again, if he is convicted the court can decide what the state may confiscate.

    Even freezing it is as good as forfeiture. Denying the use of the money to hire the best lawyers (even if the guy is a guilty scumbag) is deying him his rights to the best defense. Again, there’s no due process involved . . .

    • #14
    • June 21, 2020, at 5:16 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  15. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    Asset forfeiture bypasses due process, so it’s illegality should be a no-brainer. In criminal cases, the effect is to deprive the accused the ability to sell the asset to pay for his defense lawyers. Even if the asset is ill-gotten, it hasn’t been proven yet so he should be able to control it until convicted.

    I can also see when someone is arrested for some lucrative crime and the court freezes their bank accounts so the suspect can’t move their money to someplace unfindable. Not confiscate the money because the case hasn’t been proven yet, but freeze it until the case has been resolved. If the suspect is acquitted, he has full access to the funds again, if he is convicted the court can decide what the state may confiscate.

    Even freezing it is as good as forfeiture. Denying the use of the money to hire the best lawyers (even if the guy is a guilty scumbag) is deying him his rights to the best defense. Again, there’s no due process involved . . .

    I guess we need a lawyer to explain just how the process works. And maybe it varies from state to state.

    • #15
    • June 21, 2020, at 5:36 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  16. Stad Coolidge
    Stad

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):
    Asset forfeiture bypasses due process, so it’s illegality should be a no-brainer. In criminal cases, the effect is to deprive the accused the ability to sell the asset to pay for his defense lawyers. Even if the asset is ill-gotten, it hasn’t been proven yet so he should be able to control it until convicted.

    I can also see when someone is arrested for some lucrative crime and the court freezes their bank accounts so the suspect can’t move their money to someplace unfindable. Not confiscate the money because the case hasn’t been proven yet, but freeze it until the case has been resolved. If the suspect is acquitted, he has full access to the funds again, if he is convicted the court can decide what the state may confiscate.

    Even freezing it is as good as forfeiture. Denying the use of the money to hire the best lawyers (even if the guy is a guilty scumbag) is deying him his rights to the best defense. Again, there’s no due process involved . . .

    I guess we need a lawyer to explain just how the process works. And maybe it varies from state to state.

    I know one of our state laws is under scrutiny not only because it disproportionally affects blacks, but overall it violates the excessive fine part of the Constitution:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/10/22/south-carolina-judge-declares–civil-forfeiture-unconstitutional/#188d63b02135

     

    • #16
    • June 22, 2020, at 6:00 AM PDT
    • 2 likes