politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wait, so the sheriff, admits that he just watched three unidentified men assault a woman in front of him, and that he has no knowledge of who they are or who hired them, and he took no action at all. If he knows nothing about them or who hired them, how would he know that they were providing security? This is brown shirts in action and the sheriff is clearly one of them. Terrifying.
Not just watched, he's the one in the video telling her she needs to leave and then had the "private security" remove her.
But he doesn't know who hired them? Who was in charge of security for the event. How would the local sheriff no know that?
Does their lawsuit shield come off them when their badge comes off?
Not saying he isn't complicit, but security I think is usually handled by event organizers. That'd be the state GOP or the representative's campaign. It probably wouldn't be handled by the shariff and they likely don't know who's handling security for most events in the area.
With that said, it's my understanding that a lot of private security are off-duty cops, so he probably knows them. In addition to being there so clearly having an interest in the event, he should have been more aware at minimum. Best case, this is incompetence.
So he gave the illegal order to remove her to vigilantes he didn't know as law enforcement, and he's not in trouble?
He didn't just watch; he was the first to make contact with her, then commanded the private security himself 'boys get her'.
https://youtu.be/-lxu3Ff_s14
Remember, the police in the US have no duty to protect
or to be truthful in their interactions.
And except for when you're driving, you have no responsibility to talk with them unless you're in a stop and identify state: Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wisconsin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
You're not required to identify yourself or talk with them unless you are formally being detained, which is about the only thing they have to tell the truth about. They are not worth talking to in any situatuion, and they are never "off duty" So they are never worth talking to after work either. They should always be ignored and interacted with as little as possible.
Police in America exist to protect the wealthy. You can trace back their origins to the bounty hunters who caught and returned escaped slaves to their masters.
If you are not wealthy, the police are not your friends.
Sheriffs are known for being gangsters, probably just another day in the park for him
I mean, it seems pretty clear he knew exactly who they were, and he decided to look the other way, which is just as bad.
According to the article that was the moderator of the town hall who said that. Some website developer named, Ed Bejarana. No clue if he was involved with security, but he certainly seemed to be getting off on watching a woman get abused.