What happens if Democrats decide rioting is fine when done by non-Deplorables and citizens have to deal with riots:
When word is received that a flash mob is forming at one of their pre-reconnoitered intersections or highway interchanges, the SAV team will assemble. Sometimes cooperating police will pass tactical intel to their civilian friends on the outside. Some clever individuals will have exploited their technical know-how and military experience to build real-time intel collection tools, such as private UAVs. Police will have access to urban security camera footage showing MUYs moving barricade materials into position—a normal prerequisite to a flash mob riot intended to stop traffic. Tip-offs to the vigilantes will be common, and where the networks are still functioning, citizens may still be able to access some video feeds. Sometimes, police will even join the SAV teams, incognito and off-duty, blurring the teams into so-called “death squads.”
The operation I will describe (and it’s only one of dozens that will be tried) uses two ordinary pickup trucks and eight fighters. Two riflemen are lying prone in the back of each truck, facing rearward, with removable canvas covers concealing their presence. Their semi-automatic, scoped rifles are supported at their front ends on bipods for very accurate shooting. A row of protective sandbags a foot high is between them and the raised tailgate.
In the cab are a driver and a spotter in the passenger seat who also serves as the vehicle’s 360-degree security. The two trucks don’t ever appear on the same stretch of road, but coordinate their movements using one-word brevity codes over small FRS walkie-talkie radios. Each truck has a series of predetermined elevated locations where the intersection in question will lie between 200 and 500 yards away. Each truck is totally nondescript and forgettable, the only detail perhaps being the non-MUY ethnicity of the suburbanite driver and spotter driving relatively near to a riot in progress.
By the time the two SAV pickup trucks arrive at their firing positions on different streets and oriented ninety degrees to one another, the flash mob riot is in full swing. A hundred or more of the rampaging youths are posturing and throwing debris into traffic in order to intimidate some cars into stopping. The riflemen in the backs of the pickups are waiting for this moment and know what to expect, trusting their spotters and drivers to give them a good firing lane. The spotters in each truck issue a code word on their radios when they are in final position. The tailgates are swung down, and the leader among the riflemen initiates the firing. All-around security is provided by the driver and spotter.
Source: Troubling That This Even Needs Considering
A major function of the police is to protect criminals from mob justice. Remove that barrier, and we may not like what results.
Portland, Ore., police officers are fleeing the city’s force, and often taking a hit to pay and benefits to do so. The flight of law enforcement from the city is “unprecedented,” Assistant Chief Michael Frome told the Portland Tribune. “We really have not seen this many people leaving at this stage in their career.”
The activists’ calls to cut police budgets were picked up by some of Portland’s elected officials. In June, the City Council approved a $15 million cut to the police department’s budget to funnel more money into spending on social programs.
The cut sent the bureau reeling as it laid off some officers and cut its recruiter position since the department did not have money to make new hires anyway. The department cut vacant positions that it had historically held open to keep a steady stream of recruits, which require 18 months of training to begin independent police work, coming into the force.
“When the cuts came in and we basically lost our vacancies, that put us in a bigger fiscal hole than we were anticipating being in,” Frome said. “We didn’t have the money to hire, so we laid off basically half of our background investigators. We laid off our recruiter, because we just did not see a position in the near future where we were going to be able to use them to capacity.”
Source: Portland police leaving the poorly run city
(Paul Mirengoff) President Trump brightened my Christmas season when he pardoned former police officer Stephanie Mohr. Now, the Washington Post and its leftist sources have brightened it even more by complaining about the pardon.
Their unhappiness makes me happy. It also tends to confirm the wisdom of Trump’s decision.
According to the facts as stated by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in her case, Mohr released the dog after her training officer sought and obtained consent from the officer in charge of the scene. The training officer was acquitted. The officer in charge took a guilty plea in exchange for his testimony against Mohr and was sentenced to 15 months in prison. (Mohr’s testimony was that she released the dog because the suspect ignored repeated instructions to follow police orders. If so, she shouldn’t have been convicted of any crime.)
Thus, far from bearing sole responsibility for the dog bite, Mohr doesn’t even bear primary responsibility under the only version of the facts that renders her culpable. Clearly, then, her long sentence was a miscarriage of justice.
I’m glad President Trump did what he could to mitigate the injustice. If that makes the Post and its anti-police allies unhappy, all the better.
Source: The left pushes back on the Stephanie Mohr pardon
“I guess you can use a snappy slogan, like ‘defund the police.’ But, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it,” Barack Obama complained. Obama was pretending that there had never been a serious push to get rid of the police, and after spending eight years mainstreaming black nationalism and the pro-crime politics of police defunding was trying to pretend it was just an edgy slogan calling for “criminal justice reform”.
Source: Police Defunding, Like Communism, Can’t Fail
Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them.— George Orwell
“DEFUND THE POLICE” AND THE DAMAGE DONE: Remember the debate over the meaning of the phrase “defund the police”? Repeated over and over on the progressive left, it seemed pretty clear — it meant that cities should no longer fund, and thus effectively abolish, their police forces. But some Democrats worried that embracing such a radical proposal might hurt them politically, so they suggested that it actually meant re-directing some, but not all, funds from police to things like mental health treatment and affordable housing. Nothing too radical.
Every time Democrats thought they had limited the political damage done by a literal interpretation of “defund the police,” some progressive voice would mess it all up. For example, in June, the New York Times published an op-ed headlined, “Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police.”
Source: BYRON YORK: “Defund the police” and the damage done….