“There has to be retribution when you have crime like this…” D. Trump

So much for the Rule of Law. Yes, perhaps the Portland killer deserved to die if all accounts are accurate, but we pride ourselves on the concept of justice not retribution, or it’s real meaning, vengeance.

Such statements (made in a FOX interview) coming from our president are very troubling. Duterte, the Philippine autocrat, is well known for his extrajudicial street killings by police. Approval by the highest official in the land is just pure, ugly licensing for more of the same. 

I want to emphasize that I am not condoning violence no matter who precipitates it. And details of the shooting by federal officers are still murky.  The bald faced trashing of the rule of law by the president is not new. In times of unrest, the last refuge to peace and stability has to be our elected governments and the courts. 

17 thoughts on ““There has to be retribution when you have crime like this…” D. Trump

  1. RE: “we pride ourselves on the concept of justice not retribution, or it’s real meaning, vengeance.”

    Vengeance is not the real meaning of retribution. You can look it up.

    Similarly, the President’s comment doesn’t imply “extrajudicial” action. In fact, the U.S. marshals who shot the alleged killer were engaged in a lawful attempt to arrest him. Had they succeeded, and the suspect were convicted at trial and sent to prison, that would have been an example of ethical retribution.

    Like

  2. I disagree.

    It was irresponsible for Trump to encourage police to injure arrestees by smashing their skulls into car roofs. Irresponsible to encourage rally attendees the beat protesters because he’ll pay the legal bills. Irresponsible to brag about support from “rough” folks like motorcycle gangs.

    Trump is fanning the flames for more violence rather than trying to unify our troubled nation.

    He is just as bad as the foreign players saturating our social media with lies.

    He is a traitor.

    IMHO

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “Trump is fanning the flames for more violence rather than trying to unify our troubled nation.”

      It is hard to see how Trump’s comment in support of law and order fans flames. I think most people would agree it is appropriate for police to arrest a murder suspect.

      Like

      1. “It is hard to see how Trump’s comment in support of law and order fans flames. I think most people would agree it is appropriate for police to arrest a murder suspect.”

        Obviously correct. There are very few – if any – sane people who believe that murder is not to be prosecuted.

        But Trump is very inconsistent in his statements about “law and order.” For example, there is his reaction to the armed “protesters” defying Michigan law. Or his support for paintball gun attacks by “Proud Boys” on BLM gatherings. Or even worse, the entire Trump propaganda machine and Trump himself bending over backward to defend the deranged teenager who went out of his way to murder political opponents of the President in Kenosha.

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2020/sep/01/donald-trump-appears-to-defend-kenosha-gunman-video

        By the way, suppressing with force legal and peaceful political protests is NOT upholding “law and order.” And that is what the government did to facilitate Trump’s bible-waving photo-op. Furthermore, we now know that Trump skirted the law with phony movements of ICE detainees so that more of this “loyal” paramilitary could be on hand to do the suppressing.

        https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/09/11/ice-moved-detainees-so-officers-could-respond-to-dc-protests-according-to-report/#1b5d719f46f6

        Liked by 1 person

        1. “we now know”

          No, we don’t. An unsubstantiated assumption of the President’s motives on a low level logistics matter that likely didn’t even come to his attention is not proof of anything.

          It makes perfect sense to move agents using a chartered flight already planned for a different purpose, and the paranoid suspicions of some left wing conspiracy writer don’t change that.

          But if you are indeed correct that Trump micromanages every little detail of moving personnel where they are needed, then he really is a stable genius.

          Like

          1. Okay, I will agree that we do not know anything in the mind of Trump. It would be more accurate to refer to the “Trump administration” in this instance.

            Actually, we DO know what happened and that your preferred scenario that these ICE Special Response Teams (“SRTs”) from the border area were travelling on pre-planned flights is completely overturned by evidence from inside DHS and from public testimony in Farmville, VA. We know, for example, that the detainees were moved from a 35% full facility in Arizona to Farmville which was 57% full and that the transfer was hastily organized after two days of protests around the White House. The evidence and common sense tell the same story – the movement of these detainees – resulting in 300 new cases and one death in Farmville – was a ploy to enable rapid deployment of ICE SRTs on chartered planes.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/coronavirus/ice-air-farmville-protests-covid/2020/09/11/f70ebe1e-e861-11ea-bc79-834454439a44_story.html?tidr=a_breakingnews

            I am sorry if you cannot get better information by reading the link above. Maybe you should think about investing $30 a year (frequent WAPO sales on Amazon) to get better information?

            Here is a less detailed report probably watered down from the WAPO story . . .
            https://thehill.com/latino/516035-report-ice-flew-detainees-to-virginia-so-agents-could-quell-dc-protests

            Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “But Trump is very inconsistent in his statements about ‘law and order.'”

          I looked at your Guardian link. I find its interpretation of the Trump video unhinged.

          Take, for example, the bullet point,”Trump fails to denounce an accused killer–which comes as little surprise.” A rational person might note that denouncing an accused killer makes no sense in a legal system that presumes innocence until guilt is proved.

          Like

          1. The distinction that you are trying to make between an “accused killer” and an actual killer is pretty lame given the degree of certainty that this kid committed the act in question. Trump in particular and right wing media have gone out of their way to make excuses for and somehow justify the homicidal behavior of this sicko.

            In reality, the President of the United States – if he understood the job – would say nothing about the individual cases before the courts. But that does not preclude him from denouncing violent responses to political protests and this crime gave him a good opportunity to do so. Instead, he went in the opposite direction. Disgraceful.

            Like

          2. RE: “In reality, the President of the United States – if he understood the job – would say nothing about the individual cases before the courts.”

            In reality, the President is entitled to speak his mind, just like every other citizen.

            Like

          3. In reality, the President can say whatever stupid thought comes into his head. That is his right. Trump exercises that right very freely. That does not make it something that he should do. The President opining on a criminal case and throwing “alternative facts” into the mix may be legal but it is not wise, it does not aid in the administration of justice and is most definitely NOT Presidential. IMHO.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. ” I find its interpretation of the Trump video unhinged.”

            Just another example of how ANY view point that doesn’t meet you high minded status of right and wrong is not worth considering.

            I await your usual denial of facts in evidence concerning your outlook. Not holding my breath, but I kind of know what to expect from you.

            Like

          1. Agreed. However, if the truth ends up being they executed the accused, that is a big problem.

            Two of the original witnesses cited had inconsistencies in their statements to the police. One would wonder why would they do that?

            Like

        1. Your link is laughable. It reads like a national inquired story. This “minister” somehow knows that the murderer was innocently chewing on “candy”, talking to his mommy on the phone and then federal agents jumped out and sprayed the neighborhood with bullets. Sorry, I prefer the Globe for grocery store reading humor.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. “Your link is laughable”

            How so? The Week – to the best of my knowledge – is an objective source that does not have an ax to grind. In this case they are reporting the fact that a citizen – a minister, no less – has come forward to question the official version of events surrounding the death of the accused. How is such reporting laughable? Is it our duty in Trump’s America to unquestionably accept whatever the police or federal agents choose to do?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. But you just eat up PJM, ZeroHedge and Fox News like so much brain candy. I am not surprised one bit htat you would read The Globe. It’s about as accurate as the other three “sources” I listed.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s