Ultimately, I suspect Manafort's fate depends upon whether or not he has dirt on Trump. If he does, then Trump's lawyers will likely know that and the decision will be made to pardon him rather than let him sing. If not, then they will know that, as well, and since his testimony cannot hurt Trump they'll just thrown him under the bus (or, rather, not try to save him from the bus running over him). I suspect he has nothing on Trump, which is why no pardon has already been issued--Manafort is on his own.
Still....like I said, white collar prison is a decent hotel except no bar and you can't check out when you want to. You still get access to the cable TV in the rec room, probably the pool, and he may even earn weekend release--they'll let him out for part of Saturday and Sunday but he has to show back up before Monday morning to check back into his cell.
You have separate white collar prisons? How did that happen? And as opposed to what? Working class blue collar prisons?
Here are the security levels for prisons in the United States. Most white-collar crimes are automatically "mininum security". I am using dramatic license when describing white collar prison, of course, but it definitely isn't what people think of when they hear the word "prison". Think "college dorm" that you normally can't leave.
Ultimately, I suspect Manafort's fate depends upon whether or not he has dirt on Trump. If he does, then Trump's lawyers will likely know that and the decision will be made to pardon him rather than let him sing. If not, then they will know that, as well, and since his testimony cannot hurt Trump they'll just thrown him under the bus (or, rather, not try to save him from the bus running over him). I suspect he has nothing on Trump, which is why no pardon has already been issued--Manafort is on his own.
That's a disturbing thought. If Trump committed a crime and Manafort knew, Trump could stop law enforcement from forcing Manafort to divulge the information by issuing him a pardon?
I doubt that. If Federal charges lead to a pardon which, in turn, leads to State charges, the State charges will be seen as being only politically motivated. That may also be justification for Mueller to be removed from his position as Special Investigator (or whatever his "official" job title is). Besides, I am uncertain if Federal crimes such as money laundering can be filed as a State charge--we would need a criminal attorney to address that question.
Apparently there were *four* Broward County deputies already at the scene when Coral Springs PD arrived at the school, none of whom had entered the building(s) in an attempt to rescue hostages/survivors and/or engage the shooter. That is going to be a nightmare to untangle with accusations being made as to who was or was not in charge, what tactical decisions were or were not made, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think any answer any law enforcement agency gives is going to be sufficient or satisfactory to the parents of the victims--all they are going to see is that their child is dead while law enforcement stood by doing nothing. Whether that view is correct is irrelevant--in this instance the *perception* is what matters.
So the view among the right in this country is to arm teachers. But apparently even TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS couldn't even (pardon the unintentional pun) pull the trigger on what to do in this chaotic situation. They likely knew they were outgunned, were waiting for backup, who knows?? Should a law enforcement officer throw himself in front of a bullet for a child?? Of course, but that doesn't necessarily entail running headfirst into the spray of AR-15 gunfire without a plan. I urge everyone to read the article in the Atlantic dealing with the radiologist who treated these victims. Their bodies were literally torn apart on the inside. But, again, this is the problem with these macho, bullshit Rambo fantasies about what happens in these situations. For one thing, the killer always has the upper-hand, because he is the one on offense and knows what he is planning to do. Everyone else is reacting. For another, most of these shooters go into these acts with no intention of coming out alive, which is another advantage. But again, I'll emphasize the point here: trained police officers couldn't even manage to act correctly (that might be the wrong word) in this situation. What possible confidence can there be that a math or social studies teacher would?? We've allowed random citizens access to guns that are so destructive and efficient in their killing capacity that they even leave cops frozen in place not knowing how to proceed.
Well, it wouldn't be so much stopping law enforcement from getting Manafort to rat on Trump; rather, it would be an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" deal--in exchange for Manafort *not* telling on Trump he would receive a pardon. As noted, this scenario presumes that Manafort has dirt on Trump, which is pure speculation on my part. Still, that decision tree seems to fit Trump's mode of thought--he rewards those who are loyal (especially if those who are loyal are willing to suffer harm while keeping him safe) and attempts to punish those who are not (even if he only *thinks* they aren't completely loyal).
If I were in Washington, D. C. and I had dirt on Trump, I would sleep with one eye open and always be looking over my shoulder as I walk from point A to point B. I would also have a binder at my lawyer's office with a "open in the event of my untimely death" clause tied to it. Based on what I know of Trump, I would trust him about as much as I trust my drug- and alcohol-abusing brother who stole money and jewelry from our house as payback for our kindness for giving him a place to live after he got out of jail the last time.
@jjstraka34 Don't forget--the officers showing up had *zero* information about the situation. How many shooters? Where are they? Are there hostages? Are there explosive devices? Who is in charge of the situation on the ground?
The main point I was making was that the parents of the victims aren't going to care about questions of logistics or tactics.
Well, it wouldn't be so much stopping law enforcement from getting Manafort to rat on Trump; rather, it would be an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" deal--in exchange for Manafort *not* telling on Trump he would receive a pardon. As noted, this scenario presumes that Manafort has dirt on Trump, which is pure speculation on my part. Still, that decision tree seems to fit Trump's mode of thought--he rewards those who are loyal (especially if those who are loyal are willing to suffer harm while keeping him safe) and attempts to punish those who are not (even if he only *thinks* they aren't completely loyal).
If I were in Washington, D. C. and I had dirt on Trump, I would sleep with one eye open and always be looking over my shoulder as I walk from point A to point B. I would also have a binder at my lawyer's office with a "open in the event of my untimely death" clause tied to it. Based on what I know of Trump, I would trust him about as much as I trust my drug- and alcohol-abusing brother who stole money and jewelry from our house as payback for our kindness for giving him a place to live after he got out of jail the last time.
@jjstraka34 Don't forget--the officers showing up had *zero* information about the situation. How many shooters? Where are they? Are there hostages? Are there explosive devices? Who is in charge of the situation on the ground?
The main point I was making was that the parents of the victims aren't going to care about questions of logistics or tactics.
I've seen a couple of the kids today on TV saying they think these cops are being used as scapegoats. I'm sure no one is happy about it, but, being on the inside themselves, they can probably relate to the simple fact that it is VERY difficult to tamp down the human emotion and reaction of PANIC in this type of situation. I'm sure they'll be some hard questions here, but this might be one of the only times you hear me STICK UP for law enforcement. Because this gun, the AR-15, is not a joke. It was designed to mow people down like a knife through butter on the battlefields of war. Your random Deputy, if face to face with this kid, would have stood almost no chance of coming out of that confrontation on the winning end. Cops were FOR the assault weapons ban of the Clinton Administration, and they have been for it being reinstated ever since. It is literally one of the only things I defend them on. As @smeagolheart often says, aside from racism and power-trips, cops are also on edge because they know every jack-off they encounter might be packing a semi-automatic rifle.
Well, no "pro gun" have "Rambo fantasies", any gun enthusiasts knows that guns are far different than Hollywood...
You don't think the idea that Miss Kensington the English teacher is going to take out a 9mm and calmly execute a former or current student who walks into her classroom with an assault rifle is a macho fantasy?? It's lunacy. There have been simulations of what happens to people in these situations. And without EXTENSIVE military or law enforcement training, almost everyone freezes up in the moment. It's why military personal have to have almost their entire mindset molded to be able to respond and take in a live in a severe crisis situation.
Well, no "pro gun" have "Rambo fantasies", any gun enthusiasts knows that guns are far different than Hollywood...
You don't think the idea that Miss Kensington the English teacher is going to take out a 9mm and calmly execute a former or current student who walks into her classroom with an assault rifle is a macho fantasy?? It's lunacy. There have been simulations of what happens to people in these situations. And without EXTENSIVE military or law enforcement training, almost everyone freezes up in the moment. It's why military personal have to have almost their entire mindset molded to be able to respond and take in a live in a severe crisis situation.
Convenient how it sells more guns this way. People going to die? So what right, NRA?
Also Chris Kyle, the USAs best gun shooter ever was shot and killed by guy with a gun. So we just need our teachers to be better than the best sniper that ever lived.
One of the mass shootings of the last decade took place at Fort Hood, which is a MILITARY BASE. The gunman is ALWAYS going to have the advantage, an extreme advantage.
Well, no "pro gun" have "Rambo fantasies", any gun enthusiasts knows that guns are far different than Hollywood...
You don't think the idea that Miss Kensington the English teacher is going to take out a 9mm and calmly execute a former or current student who walks into her classroom with an assault rifle is a macho fantasy?? It's lunacy. There have been simulations of what happens to people in these situations. And without EXTENSIVE military or law enforcement training, almost everyone freezes up in the moment. It's why military personal have to have almost their entire mindset molded to be able to respond and take in a live in a severe crisis situation.
No, but the School have a armed security guy that will come see what is happening after the first gun-sound(and remember, silencers doesn't work like in movies or video games despite being easily to be made) is a good way to minimize the tragedy. An armed security can respond faster than police.
Remember that before NFA(national firearms act), USA had almost no problems with guns.
One of the mass shootings of the last decade took place at Fort Hood, which is a MILITARY BASE. The gunman is ALWAYS going to have the advantage, an extreme advantage.
I strongly agree BUT gun control will not remove that advantage unless gun control can magically disintegrate all guns in USA, create a magical barrier that prevents someone from bringing illegal guns or make homemade guns, otherwise criminals will be the unique people with guns.
If criminals have guns give them longer sentences when they are caught. Now that attitudes are course correcting on marijuana, there will be a lot of empty cells and the poor private prison industrial complex's profits might need some help.
Well, no "pro gun" have "Rambo fantasies", any gun enthusiasts knows that guns are far different than Hollywood...
Here is a question for you @SorcererV1ct0r. Do you think everyone should have access to a bazooka that can fire a small nuclear missile?
Launchers and nuclear weapons are a different debate. I can use a very high caliber gun like a PTRD-1941(14.5x114mm) to stop only a aggressor and do not collateral damage, same for fully auto weapons but nuclear weapons, is like have a aim pointed to everyone in a city.
Also, they are not easy to "homemade", so minimize the changes of some bad element get a mass destruction weapon is far easier than prevent someone from getting something that any CNC machine can make. Obtain illegally any mass destruction weapons is not easy since they are more complex to make and harden to conceal.
Arguably, if the on-campus police officer was not the only one around, he might have been able to respond more effectively. A team of police officers is better equipped to deal with a shooter situation than a single man.
Arguably, if the on-campus police officer was not the only one around, he might have been able to respond more effectively. A team of police officers is better equipped to deal with a shooter situation than a single man.
So because we want people to have weapons of mass destruction, we need to have a police squadron at every school. Or we could just stop letting people have weapons of mass destruction.
Well, no "pro gun" have "Rambo fantasies", any gun enthusiasts knows that guns are far different than Hollywood...
Here is a question for you @SorcererV1ct0r. Do you think everyone should have access to a bazooka that can fire a small nuclear missile?
Launchers and nuclear weapons are a different debate. I can use a very high caliber gun like a PTRD-1941(14.5x114mm) to stop only a aggressor and do not collateral damage, same for fully auto weapons but nuclear weapons, is like have a aim pointed to everyone in a city.
Also, they are not easy to "homemade", so minimize the changes of some bad element get a mass destruction weapon is far easier than prevent someone from getting something that any CNC machine can make. Obtain illegally any mass destruction weapons is not easy since they are more complex to make and harden to conceal.
But if everyone is armed, would that not be a more quicker and easier solution to deal with multiple threats at the same time?
And this is my point. Criminals will always attempt to one up whatever is allowed to have the upper hand in any situation. There will always be a 'civilized limit" to personal armament and hence "arming the populace to stop crime' won't stop crime. It'll just make sure criminals have better weapons.
Well, no "pro gun" have "Rambo fantasies", any gun enthusiasts knows that guns are far different than Hollywood...
Here is a question for you @SorcererV1ct0r. Do you think everyone should have access to a bazooka that can fire a small nuclear missile?
Launchers and nuclear weapons are a different debate. I can use a very high caliber gun like a PTRD-1941(14.5x114mm) to stop only a aggressor and do not collateral damage, same for fully auto weapons but nuclear weapons, is like have a aim pointed to everyone in a city.
Also, they are not easy to "homemade", so minimize the changes of some bad element get a mass destruction weapon is far easier than prevent someone from getting something that any CNC machine can make. Obtain illegally any mass destruction weapons is not easy since they are more complex to make and harden to conceal.
But if everyone is armed, would that not be a more quicker and easier solution to deal with multiple threats at the same time?
And this is my point. Criminals will always attempt to one up whatever is allowed to have the upper hand in any situation. There will always be a 'civilized limit" to personal armament and hence "arming the populace to stop crime' won't stop crime. It'll just make sure criminals have better weapons.
Criminals will use up whatever they CAN(not whatever is allowed), "assault" guns aren't allowed in France and they attacked Charlie Hebdo with "assault" guns, gun control doesn't disarm criminals, simple disarm citizens.
----------------------------
Why USA before NFA din't have any problem with Mass shooters?????????
Hertz, AVIS, Budget, Enterprise, Lifelock, Norton, MetLife, Alamo, First National Bank, and Allied. All major companies who had business arrangements and discounts associated with the NRA at the beginning of the week. All of them have cut ties by Friday night. Clearly these kids are having an impact. The major holdout right now is FedEx, who without question has to be be feeling heavy pressure to do the same.
Corporations fear of losing profits is palpable. And it was one of the major turning points in the gay rights struggle when they realized they couldn't afford to cater to bigotry anymore. This is a similar situation.
Also, not for nothing, but there is an active investigation into whether the NRA laundered Russian money to help Trump during the campaign.
It's strange to cite Charlie Hebdo as if a bunch of left-wing Parisian satirists would have been armed to the teeth if not for gun control laws. My guess is that, like me and the vast majority of American city-dwellers, most of them had no interest in carrying guns.
It's strange to cite Charlie Hebdo as if a bunch of left-wing Parisian satirists would have been armed to the teeth if not for gun control laws. My guess is that, like me and the vast majority of American city-dwellers, most of them had no interest in carrying guns.
We also have a Charlie Hebdo-level attack 4 or 5 times a year in this country. At this point, listing all the locations since Columbine would fill a book. It's gotten to the point that, one of these days, we are going to come back to these forums and find out that someone knew one of the victims, or was a victim themselves. It isn't out of the realm of possibility.
It's strange to cite Charlie Hebdo as if a bunch of left-wing Parisian satirists would have been armed to the teeth if not for gun control laws. My guess is that, like me and the vast majority of American city-dwellers, most of them had no interest in carrying guns.
At the same way that people move away from cities controlled by left, when you receive a lot of death threats you will pay for private security or get a gun, even if you hate guns.
Arguably, if the on-campus police officer was not the only one around, he might have been able to respond more effectively. A team of police officers is better equipped to deal with a shooter situation than a single man.
There is no way even the US can afford a team of police officers patrolling every school! The logic of armed teachers only works if all of them (or at least 1/4 or so) are armed. I sincerely doubt that that many would be willing to go through the rigorous training that would (and should) be required in order to carry weapons on school premises. The only other way I can see the Republican idea working is if even the students are allowed to concealed carry. However, the potential huge increase in the amount of available guns on school property would be a disaster waiting to happen! I'm a conservative and even I can see that armed teachers are not the answer. I've changed my views over the past few years and think that a ban on assault rifles makes good sense. My dad would argue with me until Hell freezes over but his idea that those weapons would help if the government chose to oppress their own people is hopelessly outdated. No amount of AR15's or AK 47's would protect the average citizen if the military was persuaded to attack them. Look at the casualty lists for the Iraq wars. An army of an entire nation with pretty sophisticated tech had absolutely no chance against us. A militia armed with only assault rifles would be cannon-fodder compared to that...
Arguably, if the on-campus police officer was not the only one around, he might have been able to respond more effectively. A team of police officers is better equipped to deal with a shooter situation than a single man.
There is no way even the US can afford a team of police officers patrolling every school! The logic of armed teachers only works if all of them (or at least 1/4 or so) are armed. I sincerely doubt that that many would be willing to go through the rigorous training that would (and should) be required in order to carry weapons on school premises. The only other way I can see the Republican idea working is if even the students are allowed to concealed carry. However, the potential huge increase in the amount of available guns on school property would be a disaster waiting to happen! I'm a conservative and even I can see that armed teachers are not the answer. I've changed my views over the past few years and think that a ban on assault rifles makes good sense. My dad would argue with me until Hell freezes over but his idea that those weapons would help if the government chose to oppress their own people is hopelessly outdated. No amount of AR15's or AK 47's would protect the average citizen if the military was persuaded to attack them. Look at the casualty lists for the Iraq wars. An army of an entire nation with pretty sophisticated tech had absolutely no chance against us. A militia armed with only assault rifles would be cannon-fodder compared to that...
There is also this paradox: generally, those on the right (historically) have been more outspoken in favor of law enforcement AND the military. They also now seem to be the people who are insisting that, if push comes to shove, they will need their guns in case they have to KILL them in an armed revolution. Moreover, the NRA going full-bore after the FBI and law enforcement (who they have supported to the hilt for DECADES) shows just how shook they really are about all this.
At the same way that people move away from cities controlled by left, when you receive a lot of death threats you will pay for private security or get a gun, even if you hate guns.
This gets at another strange aspect of some of the arguments you've been making: I have literally never heard or seen anyone suggest banning private security. That's very far from the kind of gun control measures that are taken seriously in American politics.
I think it would be reasonable to make special allowances -- whether that means active police protection or looser concealed-carry restrictions -- for people who have received threats.
Comments
Still....like I said, white collar prison is a decent hotel except no bar and you can't check out when you want to. You still get access to the cable TV in the rec room, probably the pool, and he may even earn weekend release--they'll let him out for part of Saturday and Sunday but he has to show back up before Monday morning to check back into his cell.
If I were in Washington, D. C. and I had dirt on Trump, I would sleep with one eye open and always be looking over my shoulder as I walk from point A to point B. I would also have a binder at my lawyer's office with a "open in the event of my untimely death" clause tied to it. Based on what I know of Trump, I would trust him about as much as I trust my drug- and alcohol-abusing brother who stole money and jewelry from our house as payback for our kindness for giving him a place to live after he got out of jail the last time.
@jjstraka34 Don't forget--the officers showing up had *zero* information about the situation. How many shooters? Where are they? Are there hostages? Are there explosive devices? Who is in charge of the situation on the ground?
The main point I was making was that the parents of the victims aren't going to care about questions of logistics or tactics.
Convenient how it sells more guns this way. People going to die? So what right, NRA?
Also Chris Kyle, the USAs best gun shooter ever was shot and killed by guy with a gun.
So we just need our teachers to be better than the best sniper that ever lived.
Remember that before NFA(national firearms act), USA had almost no problems with guns. I strongly agree BUT gun control will not remove that advantage unless gun control can magically disintegrate all guns in USA, create a magical barrier that prevents someone from bringing illegal guns or make homemade guns, otherwise criminals will be the unique people with guns.
Also, they are not easy to "homemade", so minimize the changes of some bad element get a mass destruction weapon is far easier than prevent someone from getting something that any CNC machine can make. Obtain illegally any mass destruction weapons is not easy since they are more complex to make and harden to conceal. Armed security will not work 100% of time, but is better to have something to defend than nobody to defend.
And this is my point. Criminals will always attempt to one up whatever is allowed to have the upper hand in any situation. There will always be a 'civilized limit" to personal armament and hence "arming the populace to stop crime' won't stop crime. It'll just make sure criminals have better weapons.
----------------------------
Why USA before NFA din't have any problem with Mass shooters?????????
Corporations fear of losing profits is palpable. And it was one of the major turning points in the gay rights struggle when they realized they couldn't afford to cater to bigotry anymore. This is a similar situation.
Also, not for nothing, but there is an active investigation into whether the NRA laundered Russian money to help Trump during the campaign.
http://bgr.com/2018/02/23/att-net-neutrality-wireless-plans-ugh/
I think it would be reasonable to make special allowances -- whether that means active police protection or looser concealed-carry restrictions -- for people who have received threats.