$1800 
made my own with this: https://www.mgnz-makes.com/

cop V. SEAL...

i dunno. I remember one LEO told me academy was like going through SFAS.

damn
there was a JAG officer in the room giving opinions at the time of the first and second strike
i guess an HPD officer knows more about illegal orders than an actual US Navy lawyer...

yes

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2025/12/04/council-approves-settlement-with-family-teen-killed-by-police-2021-crime-spree/

The OP doesn't understand how orders are processed from the POTUS to the troops. It's not as simple as the POTUS saying something and then it is said at first formation. The orders process is deliberate, analyzed thoroughly through multiple levels of command and then finally issued.
That video was nothing more than a veiled attempt to cast doubt about the President's guidance.

https://www.khon2.com/news/national/what-we-do-and-dont-know-about-the-national-guard-members-shot-in-dc/

Suspect is an Afghan who came here under Biden. Worked for CIA

cute cartridge
pew pew

Fair enough, but the alternative of putting them in prison for repeated violations of criminal traffic laws (since fines aren't stopping people like this) would also cause them the loss of their job. Granted they will still have housing of course but locking this person up still causes much of the same hardships which you cite as your opposition to forfeiture.

I am pretty familiar with forfeiture and I have some qualms with it generally but I also recognize it as a tool to combat crime. It isn't a guaranteed solution but no solution is guaranteed aside from being locked up. I think taking their car is a lesser punishment than locking them up for an extended period of time.

As to your alternative suggestion I do like your out of the box thinking there.

did you graduate from a community college with a degree in Obvious Arts?

My thoughts:
I have often pushed back against claims by the left that the president is a dangerous authoritarian by arguing that yes he is flexing the power of his position but painting him as a dangerous dictator is hyperbole. These statements by Trump make it hard to maintain that position anymore. Suggesting a political opponent be killed for not only speech clearly protected by the 1st amendment but a statement that is completely in line with existing military rules is wandering into tyrannical government territory and that is not something any president of the USA should even flirt with or joke about.

If Trump continues down this path, the next bullet flying at his head is going to be justifiable (the first one wasn't).

What does this mean? He is the Commander in Chief. What military rules about "statements" that the POTUS must follow if he is the Chief?