Ann’s Plan to End Police Shootings

Guest Post by Ann Coulter

Ann's Plan to End Police Shootings

To use the cliche of the moment, these are deeply polarized times. But there are some issues so urgent that we must find common ground. At the top of that list is preventing police-citizen interactions from resulting in the deaths of either innocent civilians or dedicated police officers.

Unsurprisingly, Joe Biden’s Justice Department is now signaling its intent to address this problem in the time-honored Democrat way — by “investigating” local police departments, so it can then announce the foregone conclusion that “systemic racism” abounds.

The next step in that playbook is a “Consent Decree,” where local police departments, under threat of crippling and endless Dickensian litigation, agree to hand over their keys to the feds. And yes, this nifty move is executed under color of law, though it’s not entirely different in spirit from the way Captain Phillips lost control of his container ship on the high seas, if you happened to catch the Tom Hanks movie.

Conservatives are girding for battle. In the past, Consent Decrees have been used to kneecap police departments, compelling them to waste millions of dollars on paperwork, and focus on concerns notable for not being “Keeping the Public Safe.”

Maybe in the interest of comity, we shouldn’t abandon Consent Decrees so fast. So here’s my stab at one. Below, I have enumerated 16 bullet points that I believe we can all agree on.

1) When motorists see flashing police lights behind them, they consent to pull over. (See what I mean? Nothing but common sense!)

2) Upon being asked for their license and registration, drivers will consent to produce those documents and not to fight with the officer, drive off or reach for a gun. (Again: Comity!)

3) As a general rule, it is advisable that drivers not engage in a game of Do I have a gun — or is it a cellphone? with the officers, but when asked to show their hands … well, I guess you’d say, “consent.” (Beginning to see the pattern?)

4) For citizens holding the drug money for a major fentanyl ring in Louisville, Kentucky, if the police knock on your door at midnight, you consent not to shoot at the officers, but to open the door and say, “Yes, may I help you?” (Observation will reveal that this point cannot fail to produce the safe policing that we all desire.)

5) In fact, in any door-knock situation, you consent not to shoot at the police.

6) We may further strike the “in a door-knock situation” from that last point. In all circumstances, anywhere, anytime, citizens consent not to shoot at police officers.

7) While it is preferable that assailants not burst from their homes carrying 8-inch knives and screaming, “I’m gonna stab the f*ck out of you,” when those circumstances arise, and responding officers have requested that the knife be put down just prior to the actual stabbing commencing, the assailant will consent. (This will be music to #BlackLivesMatter’s ears, inasmuch as they believe that, you know, black lives matter.)

8) When sprinting through an alley at 2:30 in the morning holding a recently fired gun, with police in hot pursuit demanding that the suspect stop, the fleeing suspect will consent to stop.

9) If a further request is made that the suspect drop the gun, the fleeing suspect will provide his consent. (Police officers tend to be very strict about this sort of thing.)

10) Consent similarly will be given when a police officer directs pedestrians strolling in the middle of a street to use the sidewalk.

11) Middle-of-the-street pedestrians will consent not to punch the officer or try to steal his gun.

12) Citizens will additionally consent not to turn and charge at the officer.

13) When picking up children from a woman who has a restraining order against you and has just called the police on you, and the responding officers order you to drop a knife, you will consent to drop the knife.

14) If the officers ask you to stop walking around the car, do not keep walking, do not open the car door and do not reach inside for something out of sight of the officers. Instead, you will consent to stop.

15) In parked-car scenarios, when you’ve just passed a counterfeit bill and ingested several speedballs, and a policeman asks to see your hands, consent to show your hands.

16) It is especially important to consent when officers ask you to climb into the back of a police van and not to fight with them.

A Consent Decree for our times! And as you can see, these 16 points are the very definition of unifying, hands-across-the-ocean, common-sense proposals. If we as a country can agree to these simple rules, maybe this will light the way forward on other contentious issues.

But let’s start here, because brave cops deserve to be protected. And because black lives matter.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
16 Comments
Auntie Kriest
Auntie Kriest
April 29, 2021 5:17 pm

Auntie thought Ann meant to use “comedy” as opposed to “comity” meaning mutual respect and civility, which, if one hasn’t noticed, doesn’t hardly exist anymore.

cornflake_jackson
cornflake_jackson
April 29, 2021 5:21 pm

A little quid pro quo…Will the police consent to protect my business from rioting? Will the police consent to stop red flag law enforcement and other infringements on my constitutional rights? Will the police consent to raccoon drug testing? Regular psychological counseling? I’d settle for these to start with.

TN Patriot
TN Patriot
  cornflake_jackson
April 29, 2021 7:22 pm

Will they consent to not kick in your door, warrant or not?

Mike Turner
Mike Turner
  TN Patriot
April 30, 2021 11:48 pm

It is a sound idea if you’re law enforcement and had rather not be shot at because someone may think it’s a home invasion, which it is, when warrantless, but under certain circumstances, we might agree there isn’t sufficient time to check as home invasions by nonlaw enforcement automatically do not have a warrant and are not there to arrest you exactly.

Quiet Mike
Quiet Mike
April 29, 2021 6:01 pm

Ann, I love you for your mind. And other assorted things.

Ken31
Ken31
April 29, 2021 6:13 pm

“Conservatives are girding for battle”. Since when is writing limp wristed articles few people read considered a battle? If conservatives ever fought for anything, maybe the name would make sense.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Ken31
April 29, 2021 6:45 pm

They’ve conserved neoliberalism, and nothing else, I guess there is that.

In fact, if you want to see the conservatives fully mobilize, you need only threaten the neoliberal order.

B_MC
B_MC
  Ken31
April 29, 2021 7:16 pm

They’ll gird their bank accounts by asking for your donations.

B.S. in V.C.
B.S. in V.C.
April 29, 2021 6:23 pm

Good try Ann but Chris Rock already did this 10+yrs. ago and the joggers didn’t listen to him and he’s black so I’m pretty sure they ain’t gonna listen to you

Sonic
Sonic
April 29, 2021 6:24 pm

This is fucked. I should always consent? What about when the police are at the wrong house? What about when the police are off duty chasing personal agendas? What about when they are trespassing without a warrant? What about when they shoot my dog because it is annoying them? What about when they show up to take my guns because I can fit too many bullets in them? How about fuck off?

Here is a suggestion: how about we all follow the same set of rules and that government thugs don’t get special privileges like being able to shoot bystanders and blame it on the person they were shooting at? This notion that the way to deal with cops is to always do what they ask you to do is fucking stupid. I’m not sure what Ann ‘Thundercunt’ Coulter is thinking, but always complying means they will ask you to do plenty of shit that you don’t have to do.

Instead of “please come in officer and take a look around” how about “go the fuck away until you have a warrant. Sir”?

Fuck all these “compliance is the answer” morans. Put your four masks back on and take three steps back, yes, over that cliff as you fuck off.

/end rant

Anonymous
Anonymous
April 29, 2021 6:44 pm

If the plan doesn’t revolve around sending the niggers back to Africa and the Mexicans back to Mexico, it can’t possibly succeed.

KaD
KaD
April 29, 2021 9:04 pm

WTH? Feds Were Planning to Arrest Derek Chauvin in Court if the Jury Cleared Him

Ghost
Ghost
  KaD
April 30, 2021 3:57 pm

As with all Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Double Jeopardy Clause originally applied only to the federal government. However, through the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court has incorporated certain amendments and clauses against the states. In Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), the Supreme Court incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states.
Civil Sanctions

In United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms, 465 U.S. 354 (1984), the Supreme Court held that the prohibition on double jeopardy extends to civil sanctions which are applied in a manner that is punitive in nature.

In United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 (1989), a civil sanction made under the False Claims Act qualifies as punishment if the sanction is overwhelmingly disproportionate in compensating the government for its loss, and if the disproportionate award can be explained only as a deterrent or as having a retributive purpose.

In One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U.S. 232 (1972), the Supreme Court held, “Congress may impose both a criminal and a civil sanction in respect to the same act or omission, for the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits merely punishing twice, or attempting a second time to punish criminally, for the same offense.”
Charged as a Juvenile for a Crime

In Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975), the Supreme Court found that double jeopardy applies to an individual who is tried as a juvenile and is then later tried as an adult. This is because juvenile courts have the option to try a minor as an adult. If that court tries the individual as a juvenile, then another trial court may not try that same individual as an adult for the same crime, as doing so would violate the double jeopardy rule.
Civil Asset Forfeiture

In United States v. Ursery, 518 US 267 (1996), the Supreme Court held that civil property forfeitures did not constitute a “punishment” for purposes of the double jeopardy clause. The civil property forfeiture is a remedial civil sanction, and not a punitive criminal “punishment.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy

It used to be called legal precedent and was binding upon the government.

falconflight
falconflight
April 29, 2021 9:10 pm

Maybe AC is Pat Buchanan in drag?

Shotgun Trooper
Shotgun Trooper
April 30, 2021 4:55 am
DFJ150
DFJ150
April 30, 2021 3:26 pm

Wholeheartedly disagree with #6. If the police are involved in an illegal, and possibly deadly, action against a legally armed citizen, they have not only the right, but a duty to protect themselves. Major mistake Ann.