Why are Republicans the party of Law and Order

[wmw999 2,155]

If laws don’t work because criminals don’t obey them? Or is it really just order, achieved by whatever means possible, the real goal? And if so, order at whose expense?

And why always choose the cure, instead of the preventive, path? What about the adage of “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure?”

Wendy P. 

[nigel99 151]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

If laws don’t work because criminals don’t obey them? Or is it really just order, achieved by whatever means possible, the real goal? And if so, order at whose expense?

And why always choose the cure, instead of the preventive, path? What about the adage of “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure?”

Wendy P. 

The last few years I have been studying psychology as part of a career change. 

I did a minor in criminal psychology and I have come away with the strong belief that the prison is totally ineffective and a waste of time. Secondly many laws are based on moral judgments and religious beliefs that frankly I disagree with and often miss the point. 

But punishment makes people feel good and in reality has little to do with deterrence. Jail for the single mom who had an abortion and felt she had no other choice? Good she deserves it and feed her bread and water to really make her see the error of her ways, while I go to church and pat myself on the back and make sure everyone knows what a martyr I am having to foster her kid while she's locked up. 

[wmw999 2,155]

On 3/29/2024 at 9:53 PM, nigel99 said:

But punishment makes people feel good and in reality has little to do with deterrence. Jail for the single mom who had an abortion and felt she had no other choice? Good she deserves it and feed her bread and water to really make her see the error of her ways, while I go to church and pat myself on the back and make sure everyone knows what a martyr I am having to foster her kid while she's locked up. 

Yeah, this. As long as people know who's inferior to them, they don't have to work to make themselves better than they already are.

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,442]

On 3/29/2024 at 3:25 PM, wmw999 said:

If laws don’t work because criminals don’t obey them? Or is it really just order, achieved by whatever means possible, the real goal? And if so, order at whose expense?

Liberals, of course.

If a republican commits a crime, and is indicted, it's weaponizing the justice system!  It's a travesty of justice!  It's just like Hitler!
If a democrat commits a crime, then indicting him is good and necessary, and proves that the law applies to everyone.

If a republican is found with an underage woman, it's a witch hunt.  It's not as simple as you think.  It would be best if this just went away.  There were lots of other people on that plane.  Why isn't the woman being talked to?  WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO HIDE?
If a democrat is found with an underage woman, he's a pedophile and should be arrested and imprisoned if not shot outright.

If a republican gets his girlfriend/mistress an abortion, well, he is just thinking of her, and doing the best thing for her.  Every case is different.  He supports women.
If a democrat gets his girlfriend/mistress an abortion, he is a criminal according to Texas law, and should be arrested immediately!  He is basically a baby murderer.  And if he's not arrested, it's a travesty of justice, proof that justice is not blind and that Biden has his boot on the neck of the American people.

[Phil1111 918]

Because pandering to the GOP base doesn't need facts? Or because criminal convictions of their friends, their party leadership, themselves further their political objectives?

[gowlerk 1,937]

Here is what "Republican law and order" looks like on the ground.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/daniel-perry-texas-pardon-recommendation/index.html

[jakee 1,262]

If anyone ever wants to argue that Stand Your Ground laws don’t legalise premeditated murder just show them that. 
 

The only question is whether the governor took such an immediate personal interest more because he supports murder in general or racist murder in particular.

[wolfriverjoe 1,356]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

...The only question is whether the governor took such an immediate personal interest more because he supports murder in general or racist murder in particular.

Well, has Abbot pardoned any black killers?

[BIGUN 1,082]

16 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Here is what "Republican law and order" looks like on the ground.

I don't get how Abbot got to a pardon. Perry drove into a crowd, Foster pulled a gun ( a veteran also, so it's not a stretch to think he was going to end Perry if he continued to use the vehicle as a weapon), Perry sees the gun, pulls on Foster and kills him - but he was engaged in self-defense? Silliness.    

[jakee 1,262]

6 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I don't get how Abbot got to a pardon. Perry drove into a crowd, Foster pulled a gun ( a veteran also, so it's not a stretch to think he was going to end Perry if he continued to use the vehicle as a weapon), Perry sees the gun, pulls on Foster and kills him - but he was engaged in self-defense? Silliness.    

Not even that. Foster didn’t pull a gun, he was simply open carrying a gun.

[BIGUN 1,082]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Foster didn’t pull a gun, he was simply open carrying a gun.

"He (Foster) motioned with the gun to roll down the window . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQJ25KNgLO0

 

[gowlerk 1,937]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I don't get how Abbot got to a pardon. Perry drove into a crowd, Foster pulled a gun ( a veteran also, so it's not a stretch to think he was going to end Perry if he continued to use the vehicle as a weapon), Perry sees the gun, pulls on Foster and kills him - but he was engaged in self-defense? Silliness.    

It seems quite clear to me how Abbot got there. He first made up his mind to pardon the guy, then appointed people to the pardon board in order to enable him to do so. He decided to do it as soon as the conviction came in, possibly sooner. Why? Because the dead man was a BLM protester and Abbot wanted to make a political statement to the base. It is not mere silliness, it is an outrage.

[billvon 2,442]

24 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Because the dead man was a BLM protester and Abbot wanted to make a political statement to the base. 

Yep.  It's a dog whistle - "I will protect all you whites from the colored hordes."

[jakee 1,262]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

"He (Foster) motioned with the gun to roll down the window . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQJ25KNgLO0

 

Yes, that is a quote from the racist murderer, one that is not corroborated by any other witness. How much is it worth to you?

 

Another quote from the racist murderer at the time: I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me, you know.

 

So again, he shot a guy who was simply, legally, open carrying a gun and who categorically did not threaten him with it. 

Edited May 17 by jakee

[wmw999 2,155]

I saw Foster at a previous protest about a month earlier. He was emphatically open carrying; I believe it was an AR-15 or something that looked like it, I believe in a sling over his left arm. That day he was pushing his partner’s wheelchair. He was a regular at BLM and ICE internment camps protests from what I heard  

Wendy P. 

[BIGUN 1,082]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

racist murderer, one that is not corroborated by any other witness. How much is it worth to you?

 

Another quote from the racist murderer at the time: I didn’t want to give him a chance to aim at me, you know.

I'm confused. Aren't both Foster and Perry white?

[JoeWeber 2,332]

20 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I'm confused. Aren't both Foster and Perry white?

That's the problem with you conservatives: no imagination.

[jakee 1,262]

43 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

I'm confused. Aren't both Foster and Perry white?

The racist murderer’s publicly stated intention was to kill someone at a Black Lives Matter protest. So while you are indeed confused, I’m really not sure why. You think he might have just picked that particular set of protests at random?

If so, try this from Wiki: Following his murder conviction, messages Perry sent of him self-identifying as "a racist" and of him calling black protesters "monkeys" were revealed to the public.

Honestly dude, this is not a hill you want to die on.

Edited May 17 by jakee

[billvon 2,442]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I'm confused. Aren't both Foster and Perry white?

Yep.  I think "racist" came from calling black people monkeys and the like, and "murderer" came from the murder.

[BIGUN 1,082]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

I think "racist" came from calling black people monkeys and the like, and "murderer" came from the murder.

Wasn't aware of that.

[jakee 1,262]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Wasn't aware of that.

Again though, saying he was going to kill someone at a BLM protest and then doing it is also what we would generally call ‘a clue’. 

[kallend 1,653]

I recently spent a week in San Antonio, TX.  Can't say I recall seeing a single person open carrying.  I wonder just how common it is.

Does it deter crime?  It certainly didn't help the dead guy in this situation.

[BIGUN 1,082]

No, my first clue was when a jury found him guilty.

[jakee 1,262]

16 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

No, my first clue was when a jury found him guilty.

But you can’t have examined it very closely to have ended up here arguing that he wasn’t a racist murderer. 
 

Anyway - I can’t help but think of the parallels with the Mississippi Burning case early in the civil rights era. 3 activists (only 1 of whom was black but yes, all 3 murders were racist) abducted and murdered by the KKK. Local and State authorities refused to investigate, so the FBI stepped in. When the FBI identified the murderers, the State refused to prosecute. The FBI was able to secure some token jail terms for civil rights violations, but it served as a major driver of wide ranging civil rights protections passed by the Government through the decade.

And what now? The police do investigate. The state does prosecute. A jury does convict. But a governor decides no, that’s not good enough, what we want is Texas Burning. Today, 60 years on, in the 21st Century, Jim Crow style lynching should be legal and acceptable in our enlightened society. And all the while the Supreme Court works on rolling back what civil rights protections are left.

This is what the morally bankrupt, power obsessed mainstream Republican Party is willing to promote in exchange for a few votes. That’s why it matters who you vote for. Is that really the side you want to be on?

Edited Saturday at 01:04 PM by jakee

[gowlerk 1,937]

14 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

No, my first clue was when a jury found him guilty.

Only because they were influenced by "a progressive District Attorney". And of course the trial was held in front of jurors from Austin which is a place infested with libtards.