NYPD WOULD ARREST TRUMP IF HE SHOT SOMEONE ON FIFTH AVENUE: 'IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT'
Source: Newsweek
BY ALEXANDRA HUTZLER ON 10/24/19 AT 3:02 PM EDT
Donald Trump's lawyer asserted on Wednesday that the president could shoot someone on Manhattan's Fifth Avenue and not be prosecuted, but the New York Police Department said that is absolutely not the case.
NYPD First Deputy Commissioner Benjamin Tucker was pressed on the issue during an unrelated press conference on Thursday. Asked by a reporter if the police department would arrest Trump if he shot someone, Tucker began laughing.
"We would. I mean, it's as simple as that," he said.
Mayor Bill de Blasio agreed, telling members of the media that "if anybody shoots someone, they get arrested. I don't care if they're the president of the United States or anybody else."
Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/nypd-says-theyd-arrest-trump-if-he-shot-someone-1467588?piano_t=1
Running from a sudden sound at a speech.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Sanity Claws
(21,840 posts)and that he could continue shooting.
Even the arrest would have to wait until he was out of office.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I can't help wondering if the Secret Service has some protocol for scurrying him away until things get sorted out.
We've had more than enough Presidents being shot, but no experience with them being the shooter. At any rate, I seriously hope we never get any.
(And it seems we are getting more experience than we need of idiotic lawyers.)
Perseus
(4,341 posts)If found guilty, he serves jail for murder, I think that is what the chief of police meant, I don't think he meant, we arrest him and then, because it is the president, we let him go.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)figuring impeachment is assured, and they could always get him later. There is no statute of limitations on murder.
Midnight Writer
(21,712 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'll bring the popcorn, because getting through the Secret Service is not "as simple as that". They have quite the traveling armory.
bluestarone
(16,859 posts)If his secret service DID NOT stop him THEY would be accessories to MURDER right?
Their job is to stop others from harming him. They are not his minders.
bluestarone
(16,859 posts)They were accessories. (in my thinking)
Flaleftist
(3,473 posts)It would come down to a moral issue. Let's say Trump walked into Congress with a rifle and started picking off Democrat politicians one at a time, should they just stand there and watch? Being the only ones who could stop him and doing nothing would seem to make them culpable, no?
RobinA
(9,886 posts)quite the public relations disaster!
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)I don't think I have ever seen that one depicted in film. NYPD vs. Secret Service. Hmmm...numbers?
Some movie may do it someday.
ChiTownDenny
(747 posts)Good luck getting past Secret Service to put handcuffs on the president.
Flaleftist
(3,473 posts)inwiththenew
(972 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)NickB79
(19,224 posts)Pretty sure the NYPD isn't up to the task of going up against 5,000 rd/minute of that.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,587 posts)Would it be OK for the cops to shoot him, or would there be a gunfight with the Secret Service, who are supposed to be protecting the president? Are they supposed to keep protecting him while he's shooting people, and are they also supposed to shoot the cops who are shooting at Trump in order to keep him from committing mass murder on 5th Ave.?
bluestarone
(16,859 posts)SO fucking stupid to say he CANNOT be indicted. Look if he had an AR-15, he could kill 30 people per minute times 60 mins. times 24 hours, times 30 days times 12 months, times 4 years! The judge needs to see this!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So, shooting a gun is not that big a deal if you look at it that way.
jvill
(211 posts)... which would be a closer equivalent.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)about this happening.
They're working on the assumption that it's bad guys who want to hurt the Prez, but what then happens when it's the Prez who's the bad guy?
All bets are off then.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The president has the authority to kill a lot of people under ordinary circumstances.
Tiggeroshii
(11,088 posts)If it turns out the president committed those crimes he must be arrested, and it is ridiculous to argue that he can't be.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,417 posts)When he shot someone. Blocked the sheriff from even getting Cheney's statement.
flibbitygiblets
(7,220 posts)Or congresspeople? I actually had a nightmare about that last night and woke up depressed.
Fortunately for all of us, I think he's 100% bluff and bluster. He's a huge coward, more likely than not to be the type who, if he did own a gun, would be more likely than not to have it taken away and used against him.
He's laying the groundwork that nothing he does can result in arrest or even detainment while in office, and once out of office, he'd be pardoned. But the only way to do that for sure would be to resign and have Mike Pants pardon him. And the only way THAT would happen would be if a) it looked like he was going to be impeached AND removed; or b) it looked like he'd lose 2020 election in a landslide.
Gawd I miss the days when no one thought about him.
world wide wally
(21,738 posts)DFW
(54,291 posts)If you want to shoot someone in New York and NOT get arrested, you have to go over to 7th Avenue.
ArcticFox
(1,249 posts)I heard it from Thom Hartmann this morning. Ulysses S. Grant was arrested for speeding. Here's a link to a Washington Post article about it: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/12/16/police-officer-who-arrested-president/%3foutputType=amp
Nitram
(22,765 posts)Does anyone have a full legal analysis of the basis for this assumption? Apparently it was Mueller's bosses at DOJ who made the judgement. On what is it based?
Nitram
(22,765 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Nitram
(22,765 posts)Finally, they settle on what I find to be the very unpersuasive argument that prosecution would hinder the executive in the performance of his duties "that no one else can perform." If this got to the present Supreme Court, which now has a few hard core believers in the supremacy of the Executive, I don't know which way the'd decide. But I'll wager John Roberts would never agree with a decision that would give the president that much power over the Supreme Court.
ck4829
(35,038 posts)Sgent
(5,857 posts)by the constitution -- the presidential immunity is just inferred. Seeing how congress' immunity has been witted away to almost nothing, I see no reason the president's shouldn't also be.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,587 posts)The Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution says only that members of Congress can't be prosecuted for things they do in their capacity as members of Congress while they are physically in or going to or from Congress. Members of Congress can't shoot people on Fifth Ave. and get away with it.
world wide wally
(21,738 posts)orangecrush
(19,409 posts)onetexan
(13,020 posts)orangecrush
(19,409 posts)yaesu
(8,020 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Hes a coward type of bully who knows how to manipulate others to do the dirty work. Combine that incitement with a fan base that wantsto commit acts of violence; theyre slavering for it. In the name of their god-emperor.
Its not a pretty picture.
TomVilmer
(1,832 posts)The Danish queen would be stopped by police, if she did crimes - but prosecution would then be done inside her own court. The princes has been stopped for speeding.
In 1849 Denmark got laws to get rid of our crazy kings - they are still there but powerless. The law states that the king is "free from liability", which made the king of that time very happy.
Until our King was explained the juridical joke behind it:
If you have power, you have thereby liability.
If you have no liability, you have thereby no power.
Can't have it both ways!
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Republicans should be stripped down like that!