> who literally celebrates violence against the press and summary executions by the police.
He has never done that. Saying those thing undermines any good argument you may have. If you think I am being dense please provide a direct quotation of Trump cheering for summary execution by the police and I will shut my mouth. No, if you provide an actual quote of Trump celebrating a summary execution I will erase my account here and wont never return I promise you that.
Which was entirely predictable.
Spoken at a rally.
So it's less HIS definition than the actual definition.
"The US Marshals killed him and I will tell you something, that's the way it has to be," Trump said, referring to Reinoehl. "There has to be retribution when you have crime like this."
You are changing the goal posts substantially. Wikipedia defines a summary execution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution) as being accused and then immediately killed without trial. That is not what happened to Reinoehl. He was accused, a judge issued a warrant. He was given the opportunity to come and face justice. He did not. Instead he shot at police. They shot back.
In order for it to have been a summary execution, Reinoehl would have to have been captured and well under the Marshal's control and then killed. Or he would have had to indicate that he surrendered and been shot anyway. That is not what happened.
Ultimately, this situation would have been easily resolvable had Reinoehl turned himself into police, like Kyle Rittenhouse. Sad anyone had to die, most of all Reinoehl's victim, Aaron Danielson, who for some reason (that we all know) is completely ignored in all this.
Why why weren't there body cams and dash cams? Those readily-available evidence-gathering tools that are so necessary to deliver the accused to justice? Can we corroborate the police's accounts with hard evidence? No, for some reason, none of them thought that would be important. Ain't destruction of evidence if you don't collect it... no, you're not going to convince me that Reinoehl's death wasn't an execution.
Rittenhouse attempted to turn himself in, but was actually turned away. Reinoehl claimed self defense, but his victim was armed with a knife, not a plastic bag. It's true that Rittenhouse got hit by a skateboard later, but that was folks rightly defending themselves from an active shooter.
The problem with the cops isn't just racism, it's the whole authoritarianism thing too. Fascists love the cops and cops love them.
And the president celebrates the "hero" for murdering a person who threw a plastic bag.
> Does your "no 'buts' regarding freedom" go so far as to tear down democracy in favor of a would-be dictator's "freedom" to commit treason?
The United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutionally limited republic, where the federal government is supposed to be highly constrained to protect the rights of the people, including nominally the right to disestablish it (see the declaration of independence). From the American perspective, tearing down a democracy that violates people's individual rights would be acceptable. Indeed, that is the American revolution in a nutshell if you ask the British, isn't it?
Explain the existence of a heavily militarized police force, then. And the war on drugs. And blue laws. And the existence of borders, and the notion of citizenship.
No, freedom has many limitations. Some of those limitations are justified by reducing or punishing harm to others. Some are justified by reducing or punishing harm to self. Some are naked authoritarianism.
We have a president who's a proud authoritarian who literally celebrates violence against the press and summary executions by the police. He's spreading virulent disinformation with the express intent to overrule the will of the people, and he's consistently signalling that insurrection is the remedy to his failure to do so. Does your "no 'buts' regarding freedom" go so far as to tear down democracy in favor of a would-be dictator's "freedom" to commit treason?