Barr warns that communities that don't show respect to law enforcement may not get police protection: report

Attorney General William Barr is warning that communities that protest against law enforcement could no longer be protected by police.

While speaking to a room full of law enforcement officers Tuesday night during a Justice Department award ceremony to honor distinguished service in policing, Barr made the remarks regarding those who don’t show “respect” to authority, according to The Washington Post.

“Today, the American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves,” Barr reportedly said.

He added that “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”

Barr did not indicate what “communities” he was referring to, the Post notes.

Civil-rights activists quickly condemned Barr’s remarks, saying his comments are “revealing.”

“Barr’s words are as revealing as they are disturbing ― flagrantly dismissive of the rights of Americans of color, disrespectful to countless law enforcement officers who work hard to serve their communities, and full of a continuing disregard for the rule of law,” Jeb Fain, spokesperson for liberal super PAC American Bridge, told HuffPost, which first reported Barr's remarks.

Barr also lamented the fact that police officers start their shifts each day to little fanfare, as opposed to the crowds of people who greet deployed troops when they return home.

“When police officers roll out of their precincts every morning, there are no crowds along the highway cheering them on and when you go home at the end of the day, there’s no ticker-tape parade,” he said.

He went on to compare police officers to soldiers returning home from the Vietnam War.

“In the Vietnam era, our country learned a lesson. I remember that our brave troops who served in that conflict weren’t treated very well in many cases when they came home, and sometimes they bore the brunt of people who were opposed to the war,” Barr said, according to the Post. “The respect and gratitude owed to them was not given. And it took decades for the American people finally to realize that.”

Barr railed against Americans who protest police officers, saying they should stop because law enforcement is “fighting an unrelenting, never-ending fight against criminal predators in our society.”

The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment on Barr’s remarks.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/472946...rcement-may-not

WOW just WOW! This is Murica's top cop... smdh

It's that, "support us or else" type of extortion we've been seeing. It's the latest thing in the GOP these days.

The criminals surrounding you in your area would love to make it a no-go zone for law enforcement.

We have seen it in other places around the world.

But keep resisting.

Keep making excuses for extortion. You've been doing it well so far.

...who exactly was being extorted? This wasn't a town hall speech in a low income neighborhood. It was a justice department awards ceremony.

I'm guessing there is some context to the sensationalized quote that is missing.

I'm not saying it's a good look, but to me it looks like the media response may have blown it a bit out of proportion.

Was it a threat? Or was it heading towards thanking the officers present for their sacrifice in continuing to work in areas hostile to police presence?

Police forces facing hiring and retention crisis- Link

Several counties in Southern Virginia are voting to declare themselves "2A Sanctuary Counties" that will not assist or support the government in confiscating weapons.

The democrat led state government has said that if these laws are passed, they will withhold education funding from the counties..

So keep harping on the "GOP these days".. Remember the Dem outrage when Trump threatened to withhold funds from immigrant sanctuary cities and states? Yea... Democrats are perfectly comfortable using all the same tactics.. because they are no different.

Link to your confiscation information?

What confiscation information?

For some strange reason I hold the AG as a little more important. He just sent a message to an entire nation.

I understand there are certain segments of both parties that are WAY over the top. Extremely liberal and extremely "Trumpian". Heck, I don't even consider the Trump ilk as conservatives. But when you magnify the problem by having one extreme threaten an entire nation in terms of police protection, you just raised things to an entire new level.

You said:



I want to know what makes them think the government is going to try to confiscate their weapons? Is there some information that triggered these counties to do this?

You need a link to know that almost every viable democrat candidate is calling for some level of "assault rifle" ban? They vary in degrees but it's highly conceivable that each one would get around to confiscation.

So it's a preemptive strike?

So it stems from whipped up GOPer NRA angst, got it. And you want me to take you seriously, why?

We both know damn good and well any gun legislation has to go through both houses of congress and be signed by the president. Then it will be challenged in the courts all the way to the supreme court. But you think radical right wing overreaction is appropriate behavior to a threat that has almost zero chance of ever happening... got it. And I have always considered you one of the most intelligent right leaning posters here, but can't believe you think this 'confiscation' is a thing.

Radical right wing overreaction to protect their constitutional rights that dems are on record as saying they already plan to chip away at..... got it.

I also find it highly amusing that the people who popularized the notion of a "sanctuary" where it is permissible for locals to not comply with federal law find this so disturbing or an "overreaction"... the right is following the lefts lead on this brother.. and you don't like it... primarily because you still sit high on a horse thinking the left is somehow morally superior.

I don't give a damn if they declare themselves sanctuary counties for gun toten lib hating GOPers all day long. It's still an overreaction and hilarious. BTW it doesn't matter that dems want to implement gun controls, nothing happens until it becomes law and is found constitutional.

Hmmmmm...

An unborn citizen Sanctuary State.

Has a nice ring to it.

Sausage Party State? lmao

I assume you were responding to my post.

The AG didn't send a message to the entire nation.

He gave a message to a select group of people at an awards ceremony.

The media took a small piece of that message, seemingly out of context, and presented as a "threat" "to the entire nation."

Fabricating controversy for clicks/eyeballs is the media's go to move now.

It was a stupid thing to say. If it was intended as a threat, though, I feel like it would have gone out through different channels. Probably not thehill.com anyways.

If it had been meant as a threat, Trump probably would have tweeted it. smh

Oddly enough he was asked if he would like to clarify his comment to clear up any confusion and he declined.

So if he was taken out of context, he clearly liked that he was and had no problem leaving in doubt what he meant by his comment.

If I was a cop, I would be more responsive to areas of the community who supported my efforts than to those that didn't.


So would you.

No different than a waitress or waiter at a restaurant. You get the person who is proven to tip well, you give your best. If you get the customer who is known to cheap tip...screw'em, they aren't tipping a appropriate amount anyway.

Or he knew the person asking the question would twist his words no matter what he said.

Or he was told not to comment by someone wise enough to know he'd probably end up inserting his shoe if he opened his mouth.

Constantly thinking the worst of people isn't something I care to do all the time. Getting people to think the worst about others seems to be the primary thing the media does now. Who the others are varies by network, but it kind of sickens me regardless of the target.

Political BS as media stimulus is the new war as economic stimulus. You kind of get a good result for your "business," but some people are better at ignoring the blood, guts, and odious mud-slinging than others. Fabricated pretexts are regretfully effective.

Sorry that is a weak ass defense.

It's not even a defense really.

You're response is actually a pretty good example of what irks me. The media portrays things in such a way that anyone that doesn't agree with it (or "you", since "you"(a person that follows a particular set of networks/news sources) continue to consume a particular viewpoint) is seen as the enemy.

I don't care for the AG. I think painting him as evil causes more problems than it solves, though.

Constantly painting the other side as evil is how we came to this oscillating monstrosity that is our current political structure.

We swing further and further from common ground and rarely bother to try to look for it any more, let alone find it.

In both cases you are using examples that do not apply.

A server is assigned tables they are designated to serve.

A cop is sent on calls by the dispatcher. In order to neglect serving a certain part of your community you it would have to be selectively done at the top. Not by individual officers.

I love when people blame the media for an excuse why they can't clarify something they said. If on the other hand the media did not give him the opportunity to clarify what he said, that would be the medias fault too. Amazing.

Yep that’s the way it went out west a couple hundred years ago.

We will return to a lawless society until real cops like Wyatt Earp show up again. Enjoy.

The media has always been biased. It always will be. There is no way around that. There are some sources that are less biased and centered around reporting events and news as opposed to offering opinion.... but the opinion based/talking heads with clear political agendas are worse today than it ever was - but I also think that is a reflection of who is in the WH. The message and communication from the highest in the land is one of division and attacking anyone that questions or wants to see accountability.

The trouble with the general theme of your post seems to be that no matter what the story, what they have done, how shamelessly they might have flaunted the law or lied etc - you don't think there should be a head on challenge to the person/event. That to address the issue directly and potentially in a confrontational fashion (and some times there is no other way) is somehow as bad or worse than the root cause. I disagree. Especially at this juncture when the issues are serious and systematic.

It's more the making every little thing an issue that bothers me. I'm fine with addressing real issues. That's not even to say what the AG said isn't a real issue. However, it's presented in such a disingenuous and extreme way, that it practically makes it impossible to address. Instead of trying to figure out the issues, everyone feels attacked.

Here is the original post and report. I read that and do not think it is extreme or disingenuous. So I have to assume you are bringing your own agenda to the floor.

As for Barr - he lied to the world when he rushed to summarize the Barr report and did it in a way that was totally non representative of the report. He did it in such a way that the people who spent months putting the report together were so outraged they felt the need to publicly disagree with Barr. So it's very clear - Barr is a Trump henchman - he does not have the Nation's best interest at heart, he is there to protect Trump. Just my opinion, but that makes him a reprehensible POS.

I assume this was not a reply to me?

No it was a reply to the post above - but in order to show the original report i needed to cut and paste from you. Sorry for any confusion.

The whole article is really spun out of one line of a speech:

"if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need"

When I'm warning someone, I generally don't include the word might. If someone else had said it (say a civil rights activist), people would probably just glance over it, nod their heads, and think that it kind of makes sense. Well, people that actually think about topics instead of seeing anything that could be interpreted in a way they disagree with as a personal attack.

Then you can consider the context. The speech is being delivered to officers being thanked for their service. In that context, the intent of thanking the officers for continuing to provide police protection despite not being shown much support or respect could be a possible (perhaps more likely) interpretation.

You're upset that the AG's summary of a report focused on the legal realities rather than the agenda of those who wrote the report. Yet, you're perfectly fine with a summary of a speech that doesn't line up with the purpose intended by the person giving it.

I don't like the AG. He may be reprehensible. However, two wrongs don't make a right. If you go into things looking to start a fight, you're likely to get a messy fight. Both sides probably sink to things that if they stopped to consider them they'd probably regret. Unfortunately, stopping to consider things seems to be a lost art. We've got a bunch of punch-drunk old boxers (writers/politicians/commentators) who just come out of their corners swinging.

To hell with working together to find solutions. Drawing battlelines and fighting is clearly the way to make things better.

Nahhh - having the AG make that statement is significant and deserves attention and examination. Period. If you want to try and pretend that the factual report was some hatchet job and extreme or disingenuous, I think you are fooling yourself. Even without Barr and Trump acting like mob bosses who control the institutions - that comment all by itself is significant and news worthy. Suffice to say - we disagree.

As a minority, AGs comments sounded like a threat.

Not that they give a crap about our communities anyway.

They want..”only the best”.

I have no idea where you come up with your theory. There's actual video of what Barr said. It's plain as day what he meant unless you try and twist it into something else.



I'm not sure how much clearer he could ave made it. If you don't feel that police protection in communities is "an issue", I'm not quite sure what you think it takes to rise to that level.

Three fired over Nazi salute photo with West Virginia corrections employees

More than 30 others have been suspended without pay as officials investigate the photo that appears to show trainees making a Nazi salute in uniform.

photo of Basic Training Class 18. Those in it, whose faces are blurred in a copy of the photo provided by the Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, are seen making the salute under a sign that reads "Hail Byrd."

An agency spokesman said that was a reference to the trainees' instructor, and that the photo was made at Glenville State College, according to the Associated Press.

Gov. Jim Justice this week ordered the termination of any state employees found to be involved in the photo.

"This will not be tolerated on my watch — within the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation — or within any agency of state government," he said in a statement this week.

The department said Friday that investigators had completed more than 50 interviews in the investigation, which was said to be nearing completion.

Sandy said that names and disciplinary actions were not being released because the investigation is not complete and because of personnel rules and protections.

"I cannot stress enough how this betrays the high standards and professionalism of the men and women of corrections, who successfully carry out their vital and daunting public safety mission every day and around the clock," he said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/thr...LcBTwbRXrSng5tc

Whether or not there are issues isn't my argument. There are issues. It's the characterization of the statement as a threat or extortion that seems debatable.

Focus the article on the issue. Maybe discuss potential ways to make it better.

Framing the article as a warning was made rather than on the issue sets it up as confrontational.

Reading the title of the article sets up the expectation that leads to the interpretation of the spoken words.

I can definitely understand that, but it was a statement made to cops rather than minorities.

What he said was stupid and insensitive to the issue.

But he wasn't threatening or warning his intended audience. Therefore, to characterize the statements as threats or warnings seems a bit misleading.

I didn't post an article. I quoted what he said. If one side starts out with a threat, why should it be up to the other side to meet a threat with a discussion?

Let's see, Trump calls Baltimore a "disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess."

This is how he described San Fransisco.... “people are getting sick just by walking down the street,” and calling the city “disgusting.”

He told four Democratic congresswomen to "go back to where you came from", when in fact, three of them were born in the U.S.

If you can't see the trend here there's not much I can do to make it any plainer than it already is.

You can't have meaningful discussions on how to make things better when it's obvious one side is using division as a political weapon to divide people.

Police are not there to protect you anyways. They are there to clean up the mess after a crime occurs.

There are not enough police period to protect people. Too few police vs too many places of vital interest. It's NOT the police officer's fault either so don't think I am hating on cops.

The only way you could have such a small police force protect people is to section off areas of town and funnel people through check points. That would slow things down way too much so people will never put up with it.

Therefore just deal with protecting your family as it being your sole responsibility and a call to the cops as potential back up that may or may not come in time to actually help.

Cops will do the best they can but they can't be everywhere at once and even when they show up they are so over regulated these days that there hands are tied unless a crime is happening or already took place. Either way your dead just waiting on someone else to protect you.

A billionaire who made his money in coal mining "being upset" about a photo (admittedly in awful taste) is a tiny bit eyeroll-inducing.

Jim Justice is just a kind of interesting name and I had to look him up.

I'm fine with drumming those involved out. Bad judgement is kind of a problem in that line of work. Whether the photo was a momentary lapse or a trend expected to continue, might make remedial training a potential alternative. Definitely a bad look.

I'm a little curious about Officer Byrd.

It's even harder when both sides do it. Especially when they both pretend their side doesn't.

The fact you label it as possibly being "bad judgement" or "a momentary lapse" I find to be troubling. This isn't the kind of thing that you just do in the spur of the moment. It's a decision that is made based on your beliefs. Nobody in our society is naive enough not to comprehend the meaning behind it.

As much as you seem to think others sensationalize certain events, my opinion is that you understate the same things by just as large of a margin.

Can you show me Democratic candidates for president that are degrading rural communities in similar ways? That are threatening to take away police or fire protection from their communities?

Thanks in advance.

Can you show me one that even acknowledges rural communities period? I mean there ain't enough votes out that way for them to even bother caring about.

So you have no comparison. That's exactly what I thought. Thanks anyway.

Hey, at least they didn't start a trade war that has crippled the farming community and cause a need for yet another social program to bail out their victims.

I said it was bad judgement. I mentioned the possibility that alternative punishment might be understandable, but didn't make a judgement as I didn't know whether the act was in or out of character for the officers-in-training.

There are plenty of naive individuals in our country. Link

I present alternative possibilities when a one-sided narrative seems over the top. A lot of one-sided and over the top goes on nowadays.

A lot of dismissive thinking for terrible things goes on as well.

How many Republican candidates are degrading police/military/the AG? There are different targets, but the actions are pretty similar.

I don't like either.

Agreed.

Exercising discernment is key.

It all starts at the top. How many republicans are calling Trump and Barr out for these kind of things? Playing along and staying silent isn't a call to absolve anyone.

I'm not crazy about either political party. But I expect an ounce of common decency from a president. Clinton committed perjury. Nixon, well let's just leave it at that. I wasn't a fan of the actions of either. I hold both parties to at least some minimum standards.

Trump is just as bad and I will vote to do my part to remove him from office.

The sad part in all of this is that there were decent people running for the presidential nomination in the GOP in 2016. Yet the GOP decided to choose this idiot.

Just to add. Both parties support our troops. I don't believe overruling our military judicial system to pardon war criminals is helping our military. The AG has done a lot to undermine the position. He is supposed to represent the United states justice system. Not be a personal attorney for the president.

You won't find one because it's not worth their time and effort to do so. They just view rural areas as uneducated hillbillies that are too stupid to understand city folk issues. With the exception of One candidate and that is Tulsi Gabbard. She is the only candidate that fits a moderate democrat that is not an elitist snob and actually cares about people. So of course, she doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the democratic primary because she is not extreme enough.

Still doesn't change the fact that cops aren't going to be motivated to go through high crime areas anyways because it's an area they are likely to get shot at.

Cops are sent on calls by a dispatcher and have certain beats they are assigned to.

It's not like something cops do selectively.

It wasn't a Democratic president who caused farmers to go broke and had to create a new welfare program to bail them out of it.

Sometimes people need to look at the actions instead of listening to the rhetoric.

Cops assigned to certain beats are more likely to quit than those assigned to others.

Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court who has sided with Monsanto (and may have worked for Monsanto previously) against farmers in several cases many of which subsequently lost their farms. I don't know about the welfare bit.

I agree on the actions vs rhetoric point. It can get complicated when rhetoric is used to describe and comment on actions.

Lots of messed up stuff goes on all around.

Trump’s $28 Billion Bet That Rural America Will Stick With Him

Farmers caught in the trade war have become dependent on government payments.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...sn-t-a-solution

Virginia sheriff vows to deputize residents in response to expected gun control legislation from state Democratic lawmakers

https://www.foxnews.com/us/virgina-sheri...ratic-lawmakers

Funny cause the majority of residents voted for that democratic controlled Virginia government.

He’s on the losing side anyway.

You know the rule of law and actual democracy doesn't mean anything to them anymore.