The National Guard would not help here

[liberty]

The National Guard would not help here. If you put enough eyeballs on the streets, you can suppress crime in the urban city. Flood the area with uniforms, and suddenly people behave. But you can't do that in Suburban districts. There's nothing to prevent these so-called businessmen from raiding far from home. They operate with impunity, crossing boundaries like it's just another day at the office.

Now, who's responsible for the death of this 4-year-old? Two possibilities. One: the gunman fired for no good reason into the house. Which, let’s be honest, makes absolutely no sense. Why would a businessman, out there supposedly making money, randomly shoot into a house? That’s not just reckless; it’s irrational. So, we move to possibility two: someone inside the house issued a threat, showed a gun, or waved a gun. Something that would justify the shooting. In that case, they were just defending themselves, right?

So then, by that logic, the homeowner is responsible for the death of his own child. Because clearly, provoking armed businessmen is just another Tuesday. See how absurd this gets?

There are liberals out there, especially BLM types, who would offer that justification and have in the past; " It wasn’t the fist that killed him, it was the sidewalk."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ov ... 17a6&ei=48

[MajGenl.Meade]

Utter

[Joe Guy]

[Scooter]

A car thief (A) fired a gun during commission of a theft. (B) Was arrested.

Is there some other factor I am supposed to be missing such that A should not have led to B? Because the gibberish about a "businessman" being "justified" to shoot sounds like a completely different incident.

[liberty]

We lost the war in Vietnam because approximately 100 troops were killed weekly. Over the last 10 years, more than twice that number have been killed annually by homicide in this country, and half of those homicides go unresolved.

What national interest can those deaths be attributed to? Were they resisting advances against freedom? No; they died because they had something somebody else wanted.

[Scooter]

A car thief (A) fired a gun during commission of a theft. (B) Was arrested.

Is there some other factor I am supposed to be missing such that A should not have led to B? Because the gibberish about a "businessman" being "justified" to shoot sounds like a completely different incident.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What

Elizabeth II said “With time, you become astute, you learn to take it easy"

[Scooter]

A car thief (A) fired a gun during commission of a theft. (B) Was arrested.

Is there some other factor I am supposed to be missing such that A should not have led to B? Because the gibberish about a "businessman" being "justified" to shoot sounds like a completely different incident.

[liberty]

You guys claim to care about the downtrodden, but I really don't see much evidence of it. Instead of acknowledging that certain areas have sky-high crime rates, you just spin it like, "Can you safely walk the streets at night?"

Meanwhile, people are still being killed, raped, robbed, and assaulted—and barely anyone talks about it.

I wonder if you'd be opposed to using the National Guard if Biden had done it. Personally, I don't care who does what, as long as it gets done.

About 12 lives were saved this month in Washington, D.C., thanks to the increased number of eyes on the streets. So, if you're really desperate to prove Trump wrong, I guess the next step is to go to D.C. and undo that progress, maybe kill 12 people or something. (Obviously, that’s sarcasm, because who in their right mind would think that’s a valid argument, Shit Head maybe?)

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meanwhile, people are still being killed, raped, robbed, and assaulted—and barely anyone talks about it.

Well Trump is "barely anyone" so you're wrong

[Joe Guy]

I wonder if you'd be opposed to using the National Guard if Biden had done it. Personally, I don't care who does what, as long as it gets done.

I'd be opposed to any president who would send the National Guard into a city if the mayor and/or governor hadn't asked for them.

Donald has a problem with things like due process and other proper procedures for doing things. That's mainly because he is an asshole who wants to be king, but it's also because he doesn't appear to know or even want to know the lawful way to do things.

If Donald ordered the National Guard to go into a city and kill all suspected drug dealers and they were successful, would you approve?

[liberty]

Of course not, I wouldn't approve of killing anyone arbitrarily, except in the case of war. But how about this scenario: what if the Supreme Court ruled that the high crime rate in urban centers was a violation of residents' civil rights? Would it then be acceptable for Trump to use the National Guard to bring down crime?

[liberty]

Of course not, I wouldn't approve of killing anyone arbitrarily, except in the case of war. But how about this scenario: what if the Supreme Court ruled that the high crime rate in urban centers was a violation of residents' civil rights? Would it then be acceptable for Trump to use the National Guard to bring down crime?

[Scooter]

A car thief (A) fired a gun during commission of a theft. (B) Was arrested.

Is there some other factor I am supposed to be missing such that A should not have led to B? Because the gibberish about a "businessman" being "justified" to shoot sounds like a completely different incident.

[Joe Guy]

Of course not, I wouldn't approve of killing anyone arbitrarily, except in the case of war. But how about this scenario: what if the Supreme Court ruled that the high crime rate in urban centers was a violation of residents' civil rights? Would it then be acceptable for Trump to use the National Guard to bring down crime?

So you disapprove of the killing of suspected Venezuelan drug traffickers?

Regarding your question, I already answered it. The National Guard shouldn't be deployed to any place where the state and/or local authorities haven't requested it.

[Sue U]

You guys claim to care about the downtrodden, but I really don't see much evidence of it. Instead of acknowledging that certain areas have sky-high crime rates, you just spin it like, "Can you safely walk the streets at night?"

Meanwhile, people are still being killed, raped, robbed, and assaulted—and barely anyone talks about it.

Your assumptions are wrong, as usual. Crime in all categories -- but particularly violent crime -- has been declining for 35 years and is now at or near record lows, including the further decreases in 2024 (not represented in graph):

National violent crime decreased an estimated 4.5% in 2024 compared to 2023 estimates:

• Murder and non-negligent manslaughter recorded a 2024 estimated nationwide decrease of 14.9% compared to the previous year.

• In 2024, the estimated number of offenses in the revised rape category saw an estimated 5.2% decrease.

• Aggravated assault figures decreased an estimated 3.0% in 2024.

• Robbery showed an estimated decrease of 8.9% nationally.

Even in urban areas (principlal cities within MSAs) [url=https://ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov/multi-year-trends/crimeType]violent crime has followed the same declining trends,[/ur/] reaching its lowest point in 2020 and 2021. There was a slight uptick in 2022-23 getting back to pre-pandemic levels, but the 2024 data show the downward trend continuing.

Of course, Trump's deployment of the National Guard has absolutely nothing to do with reducing crime. It is purely theater intended to intimidate "blue" cities with the threat of a Trump-directed occupying army and to agitate the deranged MAGA base with fantasies of going to war against Democrats and ethnic minorities.

[liberty]

I noticed that your graph is post-Vietnam. In the 1950s, there were about three murders per month in Washington, D.C.; now it's about twelve per month. Personally, I think three is already far too many; twelve is totally unacceptable. Of course, that's twelve people whose lives you apparently don't care about whether they live or die. (Sarcasm.)

And I see that you're trying your hand at channeling. You've got a long way to go, keep working at it; you might get there someday.

[liberty]

I noticed that your graph is post-Vietnam. In the 1950s, there were about three murders per month in Washington, D.C.; now it's about twelve per month. Personally, I think three is already far too many; twelve is totally unacceptable. Of course, that's twelve people whose lives you apparently don't care about whether they live or die. (Sarcasm.)

And I see that you're trying your hand at channeling. You've got a long way to go, keep working at it; you might get there someday.

Just one piece of channeling advice, if you don't mind: I would stay away from mind-reading Shit Head's brain. It's not worth the trauma. The smell alone could kill you.

[Big RR]

I noticed that your graph is post-Vietnam. In the 1950s, there were about three murders per month in Washington, D.C.; now it's about twelve per month. Personally, I think three is already far too many; twelve is totally unacceptable. Of course, that's twelve people whose lives you apparently don't care about whether they live or die. (Sarcasm.)

And I see that you're trying your hand at channeling. You've got a long way to go, keep working at it; you might get there someday.

Just one piece of channeling advice, if you don't mind: I would stay away from mind-reading Shit Head's brain. It's not worth the trauma. The smell alone could kill you.

So in other words, having our streets turned into an armed camp with troops patrolling doesn't bother you n the least. I wish I could be surprised, but i am not. There are plenty of places you can mive where the military protects a dictatorship' I am sorry you think so little of the USA that you'd want it to be numbered among them. After all, you're never going to get the murder rate anywhere to zero, so you'll always have the excuse for your rampant militarism.

[liberty]

I noticed that your graph is post-Vietnam. In the 1950s, there were about three murders per month in Washington, D.C.; now it's about twelve per month. Personally, I think three is already far too many; twelve is totally unacceptable. Of course, that's twelve people whose lives you apparently don't care about whether they live or die. (Sarcasm.)

And I see that you're trying your hand at channeling. You've got a long way to go, keep working at it; you might get there someday.

Just one piece of channeling advice, if you don't mind: I would stay away from mind-reading Shit Head's brain. It's not worth the trauma. The smell alone could kill you.

So in other words, having our streets turned into an armed camp with troops patrolling doesn't bother you n the least. I wish I could be surprised, but i am not. There are plenty of places you can mive where the military protects a dictatorship' I am sorry you think so little of the USA that you'd want it to be numbered among them. After all, you're never going to get the murder rate anywhere to zero, so you'll always have the excuse for your rampant militarism.

Well Big, how do you feel about the u se of the National Guard in 1957 at Little Rock Central High School, or its use to suppress riots and insurrections? You're a lawyer, so I suspect you might have a vested interest in crime; no crime might mean less business for you. But you shouldn't let your personal interests interfere with your objectivity. Don't they teach something like that in law school?

And I'm not afraid of the National Guard. They're not going to shoot me, and they're not going to intimidate me or anyone else because they are a disciplined force. In D.C., they're simply functioning as guards, keeping an eye on the community. You could do the same thing with video cameras, but you're opposed to that too. I reckon it would not be fair to interfere with a criminal's rights to do business. Does a criminal really have the right to be anonymous in public?