Black Sunday

[Dill]

(11-27-2018, 03:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So by employing the best defense of shutting down the wall, I was not asserting it was the best choice? Roll with it. Bottom line you introduced an argument I was not making. Closed border or not, to responsible for any actions taken when folks attempt to cross illegally are those that are attempting to cross illegally. 

Anything else is the best defense to support lawlessness. See how it works? 

Jeezus.  No. My argument assumes that, when defending Trump policies, you just have to go with what he gives you--in this case more border chaos and gassed children. Doesn't mean that you think gassing children is good, but you have to go with "the law" and it is the (un)soundness of that assumption which I address.

Bottom line, I made an inference about an argument you made. Which is what people do in arguments.
You went south when you claimed I made an inference about an argument you didn't make.  Stop rolling with that.

And questioning the application of military/police force to unarmed civilians (in this case also lobbing teargas into another country, violating its sovereignty) is one of the mainstays of democratic process. You don't get to do that in dictatorships. That's why we have Miranda rights, and why police cannot legally shoot unarmed suspects in the back, and why police departments and the government can be sued.

So in a liberal democracy, it is indeed possible that a state may use unnecessary force against civilians, citizens or not. In which case, even if the civilians are guilty of a misdemeanor (border crossing), those who "protect the law" may be at fault for inappropriate use of force. 

So no, I am not impressed by your side-with-the-law-whatever-it-does-to-whomever position.