"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

Skeptic Ginger said:
This is a no brainer, phi. No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy on Facebook, Judge Says
Click to expand...

An expectation of privacy is not relevant here. We're talking about whether the cop was likely to influence many folk with his post, not whether his post was admissible as evidence in a trial or something.

The only folks likely to have read his post (before it became newsworthy) were his online Friends and Friends of Friends. That's a relatively small number, presumably.

Why does that matter?

It's inciting violence that is the issue.
Click to expand...

I don't think his post incited or was in the least bit likely to incite violence.

I'm sure I've said "so-and-so ought to be shot" in private conversations. Was I inciting violence?
 
What has to be really frustrating is every time the spin and talking points get established, right about the time his supporters are giving quotes to journos, Trump logs into Twitter again.
 
Sideroxylon said:
No, this person does not belong in the force. Do these people go through psychological screening? These attitudes would be something you would want to prevent entering and to purge. The bar of standards everywhere in America seems to have been dropped in the muck. The American public deserves better from those who govern and police them.
Click to expand...

I am not saying he shouldn't be fired. I don't have a strong opinion on that.

I'm saying that what he did was out-of-line for a cop, but was not a literal threat most likely. (I'll admit that I could be wrong, but given the evidence we have, I don't think he was seriously suggesting that someone should kill AOC.)
 
phiwum said:
I am not saying he shouldn't be fired. I don't have a strong opinion on that.

I'm saying that what he did was out-of-line for a cop, but was not a literal threat most likely. (I'll admit that I could be wrong, but given the evidence we have, I don't think he was seriously suggesting that someone should kill AOC.)
Click to expand...

He literally said he would shoot her in an alluded to hypothetical. Just takes one wacko who also considers shooting her a solution.
 
You know, Zig raised a stupid example of AOC inciting someone to violence, on the basis that the fella used the same term ("concentration camp") that AOC used.

This bit about the cop is silly for the same reason. Let's leave aside whether or not his private post was a genuine threat. What has it to do with Trump's attacks on the Squad? Only that AOC was the target and is one of Trump's targets.

We have no good reason to conclude that this post was inspired by Trump's rhetoric last week. The post was in response to a literal fake news article that AOC said soldiers were overpaid. Surely, such articles are a product of the times and have increased since Trump was elected, but this doesn't have anything to do with "Send her back" chants, far as we can tell.

If Zig's example was tenuously connected to AOC (and it was), the cop example is just as tenuously connected to the topic of this thread.
 
Sideroxylon said:
He literally said he would shoot her in an alluded to hypothetical. Just takes one wacko who also considers shooting her a solution.
Click to expand...

He literally said, “This vile idiot needs a round…and I don’t mean the kind she used to serve.” If he said also that he would shoot her "in an alluded to hypothetical", I haven't seen it.

What he said was bad, no doubt. Doesn't seem like what you just described. Nor did his post have a large audience until the press somehow got ahold of it. It was on a private page.
 
Cavemonster said:
One of us must have misread the other.

I interpreted your post that I was responding to as a claim that the first amendment does not apply to entities other than congress (or the equivalent) and actions other than making laws.

Here's the quote from you again:

My example and many many others show the first amendment applies to many policies that are not laws and many entities that are not congress.

I'll say again, that I agree that this police conduct policy is not a first amendment issue. I am not arguing against your conclusion. I am pointing out what looks like a mistake in your reasoning to support it.
Click to expand...
Fair point.
 
Jerrymander said:
Can anybody explain how conservatives can call people antisemites while having a much higher bar for calling someone a racist?
Click to expand...
It's in their genetics.


I wish the news media would shut up. This is exactly what Trump wants, attention to him, who cares if it's negative.
 
phiwum said:
An expectation of privacy is not relevant here. We're talking about whether the cop was likely to influence many folk with his post, not whether his post was admissible as evidence in a trial or something.

The only folks likely to have read his post (before it became newsworthy) were his online Friends and Friends of Friends. That's a relatively small number, presumably.

I don't think his post incited or was in the least bit likely to incite violence.

I'm sure I've said "so-and-so ought to be shot" in private conversations. Was I inciting violence?
Click to expand...
If privacy isn't relative, why did you bring it up?

If it's supposedly the limited exposure, like your example of talking to a single person, you are also wrong. FB reaches far and wide because you don't control who your 'friends' tell. And that spreads out like the neutrons in a bomb.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Look, you may disagree with me that it was unlikely meant seriously that someone should shoot her, but you cannot ask me how to interpret written communication as if hyperbole is unknown to you.

The statement was made with a (dumb) joke in the middle of it. It does not strike me as a literal call to violence.

"She should be killed! Seriously! And also, she was a loser bartender!"

I just don't read it as a literal call to violence.
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer my question:
johnny karate said:
If a threat of violence is made against you or a loved one by a police officer, what specific indicators would you look for to let you know it was literal and therefore serious?
Click to expand...

I’m legitimately curious to know what specifically would tell you that a threat of violence against you or a loved one from a police officer merits casual dismissal.
 
phiwum said:
He literally said, “This vile idiot needs a round…and I don’t mean the kind she used to serve.” If he said also that he would shoot her "in an alluded to hypothetical", I haven't seen it.

What he said was bad, no doubt. Doesn't seem like what you just described. Nor did his post have a large audience until the press somehow got ahold of it. It was on a private page.
Click to expand...

“She is so vile she should be shot.”
 
phiwum said:
You know, Zig raised a stupid example of AOC inciting someone to violence, on the basis that the fella used the same term ("concentration camp") that AOC used.

This bit about the cop is silly for the same reason. Let's leave aside whether or not his private post was a genuine threat. What has it to do with Trump's attacks on the Squad? Only that AOC was the target and is one of Trump's targets.

We have no good reason to conclude that this post was inspired by Trump's rhetoric last week. The post was in response to a literal fake news article that AOC said soldiers were overpaid. Surely, such articles are a product of the times and have increased since Trump was elected, but this doesn't have anything to do with "Send her back" chants, far as we can tell.

If Zig's example was tenuously connected to AOC (and it was), the cop example is just as tenuously connected to the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we've been over this in numerous threads. No, you can't link one statement of incitement to one display of political violence.

I'm sure that reasoning helps some people sleep at night, but that's also completely missing the point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom