"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

[GlennB]

Why do you think it's more dangerous? So far, we've had violence against CBP. We haven't had violence against the squad.

Its possible that Trump could inspire violence with what he said, and it's also possible that AOC could inspire further violence with hers...

In which you try to establish that she at some point inspired some violence with her rhetoric.

Nice try. No cigar.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Hannity Offers Most Ridiculous Defense of 'Send Her Back' Chant Yet

Again, racism isn't racism if you break it into its component parts and ignore racist components, amirite?

”...these views are repugnant.” Would that be the “views” that Dishonest Don largely plucked out of his Big Bag o’ Racism?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To be fair, the chief didn't think it was a serious threat.

I think he's right. It's inflammatory speech. The cop wasn't suggesting that he would shoot AOC. I'm not sure, but it may be protected speech.

It's not protected, it's against their department policy.

Do you really think it's OK for police to publicly advocate shooting legislators?

 

[jimbob]

”...these views are repugnant.” Would that be the “views” that Dishonest Don largely plucked out of his Big Bag o’ Racism?

Careful, there is literally nothing worse than calling Trump a racist - it's really uncivil.

Although, calling a concentration camp "a concentration camp" is almost as bad.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This was a Facebook post on a private page, viewable by Friends and Friends of Friends. I don't as intimidation.

Grossly inappropriate, sure. Worth firing him over? Probably, though I'm not sure how social media policies and the First Amendment interact.

It was a terrible thing to write. I've probably said in private conversations that someone I find foolish or dangerous "oughta be shot". No one would've thought I was threatening or intimidating anyone.

And yet it became public so "private page" is an inaccurate description.

And yes, that kind of attitude suggests to me he's not fit to be carrying around a badge and gun.

 

[phiwum]

It's not protected, it's against their department policy.

Do you really think it's OK for police to publicly advocate shooting legislators?

It is definitely against their department policy, but I don't know whether that policy is consistent with First Amendment rights.

It wasn't publicly advocating shooting legislators. (1) It wasn't public. (2) It was likely intended as hyperbole and read that way by most folk.

I don't think he oughta've done it. I won't claim that the private Facebook post was an act of violence or a threat.

 

[phiwum]

And yet it became public so "private page" is an inaccurate description.

Oh? So the DNC server was public too, because the emails on it became public?

It was a private page.

And yes, that kind of attitude suggests to me he's not fit to be carrying around a badge and gun.

If he was serious, certainly you're right. I've said "he should be shot" in private settings, never intending anyone to take me seriously. I shouldn't be denied a job on those grounds. Now, private conversation and social media posts (private or not) aren't quite the same things, perhaps, but I think one can be too harsh regarding what is said privately.

 

[Belz...]

Why do you think it's more dangerous?

Could you answer my question, please? Let's step down from bob-ish detachment and step into what we consider to be likely.

We haven't had violence against the squad.

Don't change the subject. The question is whether Trump's rhetoric is more dangerous than AOC's. He's at least two to one for now.

 

[Belz...]

Police officer non-hypothetically threatens Ocasio-Cortez.

Oops, three to one.

 

[Belz...]

Sounds like Trump's Twitter response team.

Stop blaming others for your inability to read properly.

es·sen·tial·ly
/əˈsen(t)SHəlē/
adverb
used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation.

There. You can thank me later.

The worst part of this is that you got your feathers in a ruffle because we didn't read your mind post.

Fixed that for you.

And it still means you didn't respond when I asked you, so then doesn't that mean the people in the populated states have zero representation?

First of all, I did respond. Second, it's a stupid question, since they don't have zero representation as you well know.

As for not saying it was OK, if it's not OK for either side, then then what was your point?

The point was exactly what I said. If you take time to read it for comprehension this time I'm sure you'll get better results.

 

[Shalamar]

Police officer non-hypothetically threatens Ocasio-Cortez.

Fake news. Our resident right wingers will be along to defend it, and claim that 'the left' is more violent.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I thought we weren't "feeding" him.

I think we can make an exception if we're feeding him his own droppings.

 

[johnny karate]

To be fair, the chief didn't think it was a serious threat.

You'll forgive me if a cop covering for another cop's threats of violence with a casual dismissal doesn't give me comfort.

This isn't just some random yahoo spouting off on the internet. It's a law enforcement officer who we as a society grant the authority to carry a weapon and use deadly force saying that someone with whom he disagrees with politically should be shot.

That's scary stuff.

I think he's right. It's inflammatory speech. The cop wasn't suggesting that he would shoot AOC. I'm not sure, but it may be protected speech.

That's some wildly wide of the point hair-splitting.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Fake news. Our resident right wingers will be along to defend it, and claim that 'the left' is more violent.

Already one winding up on how the cop is the real victim here.

 

[GlennB]

Oops, three to one.

Three? Three what? Hundred? When did we start counting?

Factor in the level of vitriol and it's closer to 3 thousand.

 

[Belz...]

Three? Three what? Hundred? When did we start counting?

Factor in the level of vitriol and it's closer to 3 thousand.

Well let's keep it to known death threats and actual acts of violence, say.

 

[phiwum]

You'll forgive me if a cop covering for another cop's threats of violence with a casual dismissal doesn't give me comfort.

This isn't just some random yahoo spouting off on the internet. It's a law enforcement officer who we as a society grant the authority to carry a weapon and use deadly force saying that someone with whom he disagrees with politically should be shot.

That's scary stuff.



That's some wildly wide of the point hair-splitting.

You're right to treat the Chief's comment with a grain of salt, of course.

I'm not too concerned about the cop's statement, I'm afraid. It was wildly inappropriate and I can certainly understand discipline, perhaps even loss of job, but I don't regard it as a threat unless other evidence proves that he was seriously advocating violence.

 

[johnny karate]

You're right to treat the Chief's comment with a grain of salt, of course.

I'm not too concerned about the cop's statement, I'm afraid. It was wildly inappropriate and I can certainly understand discipline, perhaps even loss of job, but I don't regard it as a threat unless other evidence proves that he was seriously advocating violence.

If a law enforcement official expressed the opinion that you or someone you loved should be shot, would you be as unconcerned?

 

[phiwum]

If a law enforcement official expressed the opinion that you or someone you loved should be shot, would you be as unconcerned?

This is a comment on a private Facebook page and I tend to think it was hyperbole. It was grossly inappropriate. In the same circumstance, assuming that I believed that it was not a literal call to kill my loved one, my opinion ought to be the same.

Fallible human nature being what it is, I may well take greater offense than I do now. But that is simply a matter of emotions running higher when loved ones are involved.

The cop should be disciplined, presuming that there is no First Amendment issue involved. But at present, I doubt this was a serious threat. We should treat it seriously, but not exaggerate the offense. (Were this a public statement, I'd take it as considerably more threatening, since even if the cop didn't intend to provoke an attack, he would have been making one significantly more likely.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is definitely against their department policy, but I don't know whether that policy is consistent with First Amendment rights.

It wasn't publicly advocating shooting legislators. (1) It wasn't public. (2) It was likely intended as hyperbole and read that way by most folk.

I don't think he oughta've done it. I won't claim that the private Facebook post was an act of violence or a threat.

We just had this discussion in another thread.

I'm not sure a police department policy about conduct fits the definition of a law.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,

Nor is a police department the equivalent of Congress.

Oh? So the DNC server was public too, because the emails on it became public?

It was a private page.

It wasn't hacked. When you share a FB page you don't get a notice warning you about who or how you can share it.

If he was serious, certainly you're right. I've said "he should be shot" in private settings, never intending anyone to take me seriously. I shouldn't be denied a job on those grounds. Now, private conversation and social media posts (private or not) aren't quite the same things, perhaps, but I think one can be too harsh regarding what is said privately.

He didn't have to be serious. All he had to do was influence a friend or a friend of a friend. And it's not a conversation.

Personally, I don't want any cop loosely talking about assassinating anyone. Those are the kind of cops we need to weed out.