Police found guilty of murder...really?

[Tiny]

I disagree. The cop does not have unilateral and complete autonomy on that decision. There are laws, and courts to make decisions whether the cop was really facing an imminent threat. The alternative is that any cop would be free to kill anyone they claimed they thought "might be" a threat. Cops have a tough job and I have a lot of sympathy for them, but we are in the end a society of law.

By your argument the cop would never be in the wrong. We know that's not the case, unfortunately.

I agree with all this, and I am not saying that cops don't have to answer to higher authorities like judges. What I mean to say is that you vanceen do not get to decide whether someone is an imminent threat or not, unless you are a judge or have been chosen as a member of a jury, and even if that's the case, there are still things wrong with it, for the things I pointed out in post #74.

 

[vanceen]

I agree with all this, and I am not saying that cops don't have to answer to higher authorities like judges. What I mean to say is that you vanceen do not get to decide whether someone is an imminent threat or not, unless you are a judge or have been chosen as a member of a jury, and even if that's the case, there are still things wrong with it, for the things I pointed out in post #74.

Fair enough, the court did not consult me in this case! I don't know how the discussion came to be about whether or not I am the ultimate arbiter of anything. I certainly never claimed it.

But I can give my opinion based on the facts as they are presented. And I can point out the logical flaws in arguments that are logically flawed.

 

[Drowning Man]

Well, the way I see it, yes, judges and possibly juries do get to decide whether the shooting was justified and that implies that they get to decide whether someone was a true imminent threat or not. However, I feel that this is not an ideal situation, because technically these people were not present at the scene, and their knowledge of the situation might not be as complete as the cop's.

And I don't feel that cops siting anything they feel like as an "imminent threat" anywhere near an ideal situation.

Cops don't have the most dangerous job in the country. Far from it. Farmers, roofers, truckers, lumberjacks, fishermen....hell, even your local garbageman has a more dangerous job than cops.

And cops do seem to love to yell "stop resisting!" when kicking someone in handcuffs lying on the ground, or "stop reaching for my gun!" when beating someone up with their hands in the air. So yeah...I don't trust cops to make that call independently.

You can certainly give a greater weight to what a cop perceives to be a threat...and the courts certainly do. But there has to be a reasonable test that goes along with that perception.

And another thing you have to take into account is that for the cop, he was probably being pumped full of adrenaline when he was dealing with a potential threat, and this is another thing that's missing in the judges and juries and it further shows that their perception of the situation is likely very different from that of the cop's.

That's why they're trained and make the big bucks...

/shrug

It's easy for one to say, "he posed no threat! Why did you shoot him!!" when one is being safe and sound in a court room. Again, not trying to absolve the cop, just pointing out a few things.

It's even easier for a cop to lie and say that they perceived a threat when really, they just ****ed up.

And my point still stands, vanceen does not decide whether a man is an imminent threat or not. The cop decides that.

Not in a vacuum...nor should they.

 

[ultmd]

The fact that he was pointing a gun at his own head suggests that he was very likely mentally or emotionally unstable. This isn't an unreasonable assumption. And when a mentally or emotionally unstable person has a gun....it is also not unreasonable to think he might turn it on someone. There is no telling what a mentally/emotionally unstable person might do, and it appears that the cops erred on the side of caution. And I don't know if the cops yelled at him to put his weapon down. If they did and he didn't obey, then shooting him is justified.

This is just an absurd series of rationalizations. Show me the city code where it says that it's " reasonable" to "assume" any of the above scenarios you've described are "reasonable", please. You might as well suggest that the dead victim "could" have called the police with a "secret" plan to kill a cop that day. That would be about as "reasonable" as anything you've said, above. Anything "could" happen, I suppose....especially when the target is a black man with a gun, right?

In other words, those are just really lame excuses that we always see from conservatives when a white cop kills a black man. Nothing new, there.

That a white cop was convicted of murdering an ARMED black in......and his own superiors (two WHITE officers, btw) testifying against him.....in ALABAMA (for Pete's sake)....should tell ANY "reasonable" person how egregious this incident must have been.

So I guess you and I have very different definitions of the term "reasonable".

The police are trained and paid to handle situations by DE-ESCALATING them AND to assume the risks associated with that responsibility. That's their damn job. They are the professionals (allegedly). The mentally distraught man with suicidal ideations was NOT being paid to de-escalate that situation. The cops were. They are entrusted with the incredible power to use lethal force at a moment's notice, at their own personal discretion. No one else in society holds as much power in their hands, from day-to-day, second-to-second.

It's NOT "reasonalble" for a cop to shoot a suicidal man/woman who who is only threatening him/herself. Not in any reasonable circumstance, and certainly not in this one where the victim himself called the police because he was feeling suicidal. What began as a cry for help from a desperate, troubled man....ended with the "helper" pushing himself to the front of a group of superior officers (who were trying to de-escalate) and putting a bullet into the forehead of the man who called them for "HELP".....in 11 seconds.

11 SECONDS!!...of "de-escalation" (i.e. "Drop your f-ing gun!")....and a bullet to the forehead.

And people like you think that's "not unreasonable"?

Sorry, but that's not a reasonable judgment by you. That's a political/ideological judgment.

Every single interaction between the police and the public involves at least one random individual....and at least one PROFESSIONAL whose JOB is to handle every interaction in the safest possible way....AND to assume any/all necessary risks necessary to resolve a given situation. That cop is on the job. That citizen is not. It is NOT the responsibility of every citizen to diffuse every situation. That's the cop's job...his DUTY...a duty that LITERALLY comes with the job description.

 

[CaughtInThe]

so to help he killed a man who was on the verge of killing himself?

 

[Lursa]

If the cops knew there was no one else in the house, then IMO they should have backed out and just contained the premises.

If there were others in the house, then I'm not sure it was a bad shoot, since a clearly unstable person had a gun and close proximity to others.

 

[Tiny]

This is just an absurd series of rationalizations. Show me the city code where it says that it's " reasonable" to "assume" any of the above scenarios you've described are "reasonable", please. You might as well suggest that the dead victim "could" have called the police with a "secret" plan to kill a cop that day. That would be about as "reasonable" as anything you've said, above. Anything "could" happen, I suppose....especially when the target is a black man with a gun, right?

Again, I am not trained in law enforcement, however what I have said just makes sense to me, because cops have to assume something. There is no way for them to ascertain something like the state of someone's mental health, yet circumstances demand that they act quick. For example, when they see a seemingly out of control person waving a weapon menacingly, do you think they say to themselves, we better ask a trained professional like a psychiatrist to ascertain whether he is indeed crazy. Does that even make sense to you? I mention assume not because it's the ideal thing to do, but because in a lot of situations it's about the only thing cops can do.

In other words, those are just really lame excuses that we always see from conservatives when a white cop kills a black man. Nothing new, there.

How did you know that the victim was black though? I read the link but I didn't see any mention of his race. Also, you hate conservatives. We get it. You have to drag your hatred of conservatives into this thread.

That a white cop was convicted of murdering an ARMED black in......and his own superiors (two WHITE officers, btw) testifying against him.....in ALABAMA (for Pete's sake)....should tell ANY "reasonable" person how egregious this incident must have been.

For your information, a lot of the things I said in this thread are in regards to general principles, I am not strictly talking about this particular case. Regardless of how egregious this incident was or wasn't, my general principle that cops sometimes have to do certain things and we mustn't be quick to judge them stands.

Also, I don't think you should base your verdict of how egregious the case was or wasn't on whether the incident happened in Alabama or whether his white superiors testified against him. If you do then it's bad thinking.

So I guess you and I have very different definitions of the term "reasonable".

The police are trained and paid to handle situations by DE-ESCALATING them AND to assume the risks associated with that responsibility.

Again, I am not arguing that. However, it's just like I said earlier, there are situations where people simply cannot be reasoned with. And I am not talking about this particular case. I mean in general. For example, there is an out-of-control looking madman waving a big knife menacingly. Police order him to put the weapon down but he doesn't. How would you de-escalate this?

That's their damn job. They are the professionals (allegedly).

I really don't think that you are impartial. You apparently are prejudiced against law enforcement, based on the way you talk. Saying how it's their "damn" job and how they are "alleged" professionals. People who don't hate cops don't tend to talk like that.


--continued

 

[Tiny]

The mentally distraught man with suicidal ideations was NOT being paid to de-escalate that situation. The cops were. They are entrusted with the incredible power to use lethal force at a moment's notice, at their own personal discretion. No one else in society holds as much power in their hands, from day-to-day, second-to-second.

If you think that police might need to be policed, I do not disagree with that.

It's NOT "reasonalble" for a cop to shoot a suicidal man/woman who who is only threatening him/herself.

Again, it goes back to what I said earlier. Nobody is saying that the man wasn't suicidal. However, what you can't say is that a suicidal man is only a threat to himself, especially not when he also has a gun in his hand. Quite a few suicidal people want to take people out with them because they figure they are going to be dead, they might as well kill others since they won't be going to jail for that. This mentality is rare but does happen.

Not in any reasonable circumstance, and certainly not in this one where the victim himself called the police because he was feeling suicidal. What began as a cry for help from a desperate, troubled man....ended with the "helper" pushing himself to the front of a group of superior officers (who were trying to de-escalate) and putting a bullet into the forehead of the man who called them for "HELP".....in 11 seconds.

Again, I am not only talking about this particular case in this thread. A lot of what I said in this thread are in regards to generalities.

11 SECONDS!!...of "de-escalation" (i.e. "Drop your f-ing gun!")....and a bullet to the forehead.

And people like you think that's "not unreasonable"?

Sorry, but that's not a reasonable judgment by you. That's a political/ideological judgment.

Every single interaction between the police and the public involves at least one random individual....and at least one PROFESSIONAL whose JOB is to handle every interaction in the safest possible way....AND to assume any/all necessary risks necessary to resolve a given situation. That cop is on the job. That citizen is not. It is NOT the responsibility of every citizen to diffuse every situation. That's the cop's job...his DUTY...a duty that LITERALLY comes with the job description.

True but I never said it was the citizen's job. Not sure what you are trying to say, tbh.

 

[poweRob]

Alabama police officer convicted of murder in shooting death of suicidal man | Blaze Media

An Alabama jury convicted Huntsville police Officer William Ben Darby of murder on Friday, for fatally shooting a suicidal man who was holding a gun to his own head three years ago.What are the details?On April 3, 2018, Huntsville resident Jeff Parker called 911 for help, telling dispatchers...

www.theblaze.com

First, I assume the victim was not black or this would have been a world wide exploited case.

Anyway, basically he storms in to a residence where a man is holding a gun on himself threatening suicide. He orders the man to drop his gun, when he doesn't the officer shoots him dead.

IMO most people are going to extremes on these kinds of cases, either calling it murder (like the jury did) or saying it's justified and defending the cops like the local police did.

I think society should often take a middle road on these kinds of cases. No matter how well trained or normally cool and logical a cop ((or soldier) is, the survival instincts can cause them to act prematurely when deadly force is present possibly against them.

If we expect perfection and robotic precision from cops and understandable misjudgements result in prison, smart people will not become cops.

This suicidal person obviously was emotionally unstable, and could have at any moment turned the gun and shot both cops. The cop then would have been second guessed why he didn't stop the threat.

It was bad policing, and he should have been banned from that kind of work, but murder is too much.

The locals expect this to be overturned, not sure why.

Don't worry, Alabama saw fit after your hero's conviction of murder... to then put him on PAID leave.

 

[phoenix2020]

I would have imagined they could have backed out of the house, surrounded it, evacuated neighbors as necessary and called for help including someone to talk them down over bullhorn or phone, rather than barge in, make demands then shoot to face in 11s.

 

[Simpletruther]

Don't worry, Alabama saw fit after your hero's conviction of murder... to then put him on PAID leave.

You mean your hero.

 

[poweRob]

You mean your hero.

Nope. I said what I mean. Just like you did in the OP you created of throwing cover for this murderer.

 

[Luckyone]

And how was the cop to know what he would have or wouldn't have done? I know we are just speculating about it, but you realize that if the cop didn't shoot him dead, he very well could have killed someone? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that this would not have happened?

Your argument is ridiculous for the simple reason that under your scenario, a cop should shoot to kill anyone brandishing a gun for any reason. After all, anyone brandishing a gun "could" kill someone, right?

 

[Luckyone]

Maybe. But if taken at face value, many hear still see it as a bad shot. At face value I argue it isn't murder, but it isn't totally justified either.

Anytime you kill someone that is posing no danger to yourself or others, it is murder. End of story.

 

[Simpletruther]

Anytime you kill someone that is posing no danger to yourself or others, it is murder. End of story.

And? Show me someone disagreeing with that.

 

[Luckyone]

And? Show me someone disagreeing with that.

Yet, all your posts suggest that the cop should not have been accused and convicted of murder. Show me where the man posed a threat to the cop or to others?

 

[Tiny]

Your argument is ridiculous for the simple reason that under your scenario, a cop should shoot to kill anyone brandishing a gun for any reason. After all, anyone brandishing a gun "could" kill someone, right?

I would think that the person has to do so in a menacing manner, and not only that, if the police order him to put his weapon down but he doesn't, then shooting him might be justified.

I don't get why so many people have a problem with what I said. I know that it's bad to kill someone based on what he might do, however, this is misrepresenting what cops do. It's about probabilities. Some people simply have a high enough (as determined by the cop) probability of harming others that it justifies deadly force. And I am not saying that cops are never wrong in judging this probability. I mean they get hauled up in front of a judge all the time.

Another flaw that I would point out in this kind of logic, is that it implies that police can only shoot someone after they have killed someone. I mean, if cops can't shoot just because someone might kill, then that necessarily means they can only shoot after it has been established that he did kill. And this makes so little sense and not only that, it's already what most people don't do. When a rapist is trying to rape your daughter, do you use deadly force to repel him before he rapes her, or do you wait till after he rapes her? If you do the former, then you will have committed the same thing of what cops do, aka, shooting someone for what he might do.

 

[Simpletruther]

Yet, all your posts suggest that the cop should not have been accused and convicted of murder. Show me where the man posed a threat to the cop or to others?

He had a gun put threatening to use it. That indicates and unhinged unstable person who might turn the gun on others.

 

[Cope]

Anytime you kill someone that is posing no danger to yourself or others, it is murder. End of story.

Honestly to do anything else is thought crime policing, and that is a no no.
This guy is guilty and the department that put him on leave needs to be completely re-structured.

 

[ultmd]

Again, I am not trained in law enforcement, however what I have said just makes sense to me, because cops have to assume something.

And that's where PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT comes into play. It's their JOB to exercise good judgment and assume the risks of such encounters. Remember, they are the only professionals at the scene. It's not the responsibility of a distressed, suicidal man to de-escalate the situation. Come on, now. If he could do that, he wouldn't have called for help in the first place. Both superior (in rank) officers at the scene understood that and were actually succeeding at de-escalating attempts (according to their words and to reports from bodycam footage). The defendant burst in front of both of his superiors and, within 11 seconds, place bullets in the forehead of the distressed man.

Honestly, it strikes me as absurd to see anyone even attempting to rationalize that cop's actions.

There is no way for them to ascertain something like the state of someone's mental health, yet circumstances demand that they act quick.

Yes, there are ways to ascertain the state of someone's mental health. That's what mental health professionals (and GOOD, well-trained cops) do all the time.

And there was ZERO need for this cop to "act quick". He wasn't even the first on the scene. He walked into a scene that was already being handled....by officers with MUCH more experience than he.

Come on, now. This is just a really weak defense/rationalization. and, just as importantly, it does not escape me that ALL of your assumptions are on behalf of the cop, and NONE are on behalf of the victim. Seems to me that your assumptions are all aimed at validating your existing biases, Tiny.

For example, when they see a seemingly out of control person waving a weapon menacingly, do you think they say to themselves, we better ask a trained professional like a psychiatrist to ascertain whether he is indeed crazy. Does that even make sense to you?

That's a totally irrelevant scenario with respect to this incident. That said, that scenario( (i.e. "an out of control person menacingly waving a weapon", etc.) in which a mental health professional would be called first. And the sad truth is that, time after time, we see police use the "moment's decision" excuse when no such urgency exists.

I mention assume not because it's the ideal thing to do, but because in a lot of situations it's about the only thing cops can do.

Again, this is where professional judgment comes into play. Some police just use their revolvers and/or resort to physical confrontation to quickly. There's an FBI stat that shows that 75% of the confrontations by all police in the country come from about 6% of all cops in the country. That's a pretty clear indication of a problem.

How did you know that the victim was black though? I read the link but I didn't see any mention of his race. Also, you hate conservatives. We get it. You have to drag your hatred of conservatives into this thread.

No, I do not hate conservatives. I don't hate Trump supporters. And I don't believe "conservative" is the best description for most Trump supporters. Most Trump supporters are not traditional conservatives in any way. They are a few things, for sure, but "traditional conservatives" is not among them.

But look, if you want to know something from me, just ask me directly.

Don't confuse your feelings for my views.

For your information, a lot of the things I said in this thread are in regards to general principles, I am not strictly talking about this particular case. Regardless of how egregious this incident was or wasn't, my general principle that cops sometimes have to do certain things and we mustn't be quick to judge them stands.

I think your "general principles" are kind of irrelevant when the subject is the details of a specific incident. Wouldn't you agree?

The simple fact is that if Mr. Parker (who is now dead) was a white guy in his own suburban home....who was mentally distressed and suicidal....and was about to kill himself, but wanted someone to pull him back from the edge of complete and total despair....and called 911 to ask for some help.....he'd almost certainly STILL BE ALIVE TODAY.

As for cops needing to make quick decisions, I agree. Problem is...."quick decisions" has become an excuse for unnecessary use of force. Where you and I might disagree is with the leeway given to cops on the use of lethal force. If cops killed unarmed white people at the same rate as they do unarmed white people, there would be no need for this discussion.

 

[ultmd]

Also, I don't think you should base your verdict of how egregious the case was or wasn't on whether the incident happened in Alabama or whether his white superiors testified against him. If you do then it's bad thinking.

....look, you're talking to a born and bred Southerner, here. I've lived and worked in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas (in addition to NYC and the Midwest ).

But with respect to politics and justice in Alabama....I do know more than a thing or two about politics, justice and society in the south.

Now, with that said.....what's YOUR "verdict" based upon?

I really don't think that you are impartial. You apparently are prejudiced against law enforcement, based on the way you talk. Saying how it's their "damn" job and how they are "alleged" professionals. People who don't hate cops don't tend to talk like that.

Well, that's just nonsense. I'm as impartial as you. The difference is that I actually have a lifetime of lived, learned experience on my side.

You're Canadian, I take it?

If you think that police might need to be policed, I do not disagree with that.

I certainly do.

"Self" is to "regulation as "self" is to "dealing".

OOW, "Self-regulation" is often no regulation at all.

Again, it goes back to what I said earlier. Nobody is saying that the man wasn't suicidal. However, what you can't say is that a suicidal man is only a threat to himself, especially not when he also has a gun in his hand.

I'm sorry, but when every other police officer in the room is convinced they are successfully de-escalating the situation, and ONE guy comes in like Rambo and puts a bullet between the eyes in 11 seconds....your argument, above, is just silly to me. The situation in question is not your fictional scenario. Why keep bringing up carefully crafted hypotheticals as if they anything more than that? It's silly.

Quite a few suicidal people want to take people out with them because they figure they are going to be dead, they might as well kill others since they won't be going to jail for that. This mentality is rare but does happen.

The fact that something is possible (be it rare, or frequent)...is NEVER an excuse to fail to do the job as you have been trained to do it.

 

[OrphanSlug]

So much for de-escalation, someone is threatening to kill themselves... open fire and help them out.

 

[Luckyone]

He had a gun put threatening to use it. That indicates and unhinged unstable person who might turn the gun on others.

On himself. At no time was the cop or any other person at risk. The unhinged and unstable person is just your opinion. I have though about suicide a couple of times during my life and I certainly am not unhinged or unstable. Many others have done so as well. There are times in our life where we lose all control over our lives or something happens we cannot live with (like the death of a loved one) and consideration to taking your own life occurs. You are no judge to decide whether the person was unhinged or unstable and much less the cop at the time.

 

[Tiny]

And that's where PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT comes into play. It's their JOB to exercise good judgment and assume the risks of such encounters. Remember, they are the only professionals at the scene. It's not the responsibility of a distressed, suicidal man to de-escalate the situation. Come on, now. If he could do that, he wouldn't have called for help in the first place. Both superior (in rank) officers at the scene understood that and were actually succeeding at de-escalating attempts (according to their words and to reports from bodycam footage). The defendant burst in front of both of his superiors and, within 11 seconds, place bullets in the forehead of the distressed man.

Honestly, it strikes me as absurd to see anyone even attempting to rationalize that cop's actions.

Except I am not "rationalizing" Darby's actions, because I am not talking about this particular case. I am speaking about general principles, which I already told you, in fact quite a few times, but it just doesn't sink in.

Again, let ask you. "Cops have to assume something", as a general principle. Agree or disagree? Note I am not asking, "should Darby have had to assume something?"

Yes, there are ways to ascertain the state of someone's mental health. That's what mental health professionals (and GOOD, well-trained cops) do all the time.

No. One needs to have professional schooling and training to be able to ascertain the state of someone's mental health. Most cops don't have that training. Most cops are not trained like a psychiatrist or maybe psychologist would be. Yes they are often able to tell (which is different from ascertain) someone's state of mental health roughly, however it's very rough, approximate, and it's close to surmising.

And there was ZERO need for this cop to "act quick". He wasn't even the first on the scene. He walked into a scene that was already being handled....by officers with MUCH more experience than he.

I really don't think you are reading what I am writing. I never said there was need for Darby to act quick. I said that cops IN GENERAL have to act quick.

Let me ask you again. Do circumstances require that cops in general, NOT DARBY, act quick?

Come on, now. This is just a really weak defense/rationalization. and, just as importantly, it does not escape me that ALL of your assumptions are on behalf of the cop, and NONE are on behalf of the victim. Seems to me that your assumptions are all aimed at validating your existing biases, Tiny.

So tell me, what are my "assumptions", and what are my "existing biases"? You sound like you know me quite well.

--continued

 

[Tiny]

That's a totally irrelevant scenario with respect to this incident.

It's not an "irrelevant scenario". It's a hypothetical situation that I came up with to demonstrate the principle that cops in general do not routinely call in a mental healthy specialist to ascertain someone's mental healthy before they decide whether to use force. Again, stop crying about how it has nothing to this incident. I don't know how many times I need to tell you that I am speaking in terms of generalities, I am NOT about this specific incident.

Let me ask you again. Do you, or do you not, think that cops IN GENERAL routinely call for a psychiatrist or a psychologist when they are confronted with a madman waving a knife menacingly? Note I am NOT talking about Darby.

That said, that scenario( (i.e. "an out of control person menacingly waving a weapon", etc.) in which a mental health professional would be called first.

Either this is a straight up lie, or we live in very different countries. Where I live, when someone waves a weapon menacingly and he doesn't put it down when the police order him to, they shoot.

And the sad truth is that, time after time, we see police use the "moment's decision" excuse when no such urgency exists.

Again, I acknowledge that some cops do use that as an excuse, however what you can't say is that no such urgency exists. The only person who can decide that is the cop. And I mean even if he winds up in front of a judge, and he has to answer for his action, the principle still stands. Cops are the ones who get to decide whether such urgency exists or not. You don't get to decide that. Unless you are a judge or a member of a jury and even if that's the case, you still do not perceive the situation the same way as the cop does.

Again, this is where professional judgment comes into play. Some police just use their revolvers and/or resort to physical confrontation to quickly. There's an FBI stat that shows that 75% of the confrontations by all police in the country come from about 6% of all cops in the country. That's a pretty clear indication of a problem.

Or it could argued that the 94% of them do not confront enough.

Look, I am not trying to say whether there is a problem with the police in your country. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, I don't really know. But if you are a civilian, aka, someone who is not in the law enforcement, or if you aren't some scholar who studies this stuff for a living, then I take what you say with a grain of salt. For all I know, you could just be someone who's prejudiced against cops.

Another thing I will point out, you mentioned, "resort to physical confrontation too quickly". Again, it's easy to throw out this accusation when you are posting from the comfort of your home. Have you ever been in the shoe of a cop? Do you know what they deal with on a daily basis? Are you aware that in a lot of situations, if they don't shoot first, it could mean that they will be dead? Again, I am not saying that cops should use this excuse to be trigger-happy and just shoot at whoever they want. I wish to point out to you that it's not entirely the cops' fault. And if you want to reform the law enforcement, it's all well and good, but you can't ignore the criminals and the public. You need to also make sure that there are fewer dangerous criminals and fewer crazy civilians. Otherwise, you will create a situation where good people are simply too afraid to become cops, because it would mean they would have to deal with some incredibly sketchy people and at the same time, they are expected to "not be so quick with physical confrontation".

No, I do not hate conservatives. I don't hate Trump supporters. And I don't believe "conservative" is the best description for most Trump supporters. Most Trump supporters are not traditional conservatives in any way. They are a few things, for sure, but "traditional conservatives" is not among them.

But look, if you want to know something from me, just ask me directly.

Don't confuse your feelings for my views.

Fair enough. I shouldn't have assumed.

--continued