No differences that matter between an internet nobody on an obscure platform and a person with authority and ability to carry it out on his own on a widely publicized platform? If you can't see differences that matter, you might need to get your eyes checked.
First, the police officer has no more authority or ability to shoot AOC than any other citizen.
Second, it's not reasonable to assume that the police officer's audience is more likely to include an inciteable psycho than fuelair's audience here. If the concern is violent hyperbole inciting violent acts, then I think that concern applies equally to fuelair's audience. Because who knows when or where a violent psycho will notice and latch on to such ideas? It's risky either way. And equally risky, in my opinion.
Good thing the police officer's boss has
canned the guy, by the way.
While I agree that firing this guy was the right thing to do, it doesn't actually affect his authority or ability to serve AOC a round. Nor does it affect his ability to incite others with his violent rhetoric.
Just like fuelair's ability to risk inciting someone with violent rhetoric isn't affected by his lack of standing as a uniformed police officer.
You've brought this up many times, but you've yet to show an example of people excusing fuelair. I know, I know, conservative playbook dictates that you just make up a position for your opponent and just keep on repeating that line despite lack of evidence or even evidence to the contrary. I just wanted to point out your use of this tactic.
Fuelair was banned from this forum for violating the forum rules about not posting obscenities:
From the Membership Agreement:
2. You will not post anything that is pornographic, obscene, or contains excessive reference to violence and/or explicit sexual acts. This includes representational artwork as well as photographic or video media and includes linking directly to such content from the Forum.
[...]
9. You will not post anything indecent. This includes content that depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in an offensive manner.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25744
Rules 1 and 3 relate to criminal acts and threats of violence. As far as I know, the idea that fuelair was actually inciting violence never came up, and was never a part of the rationale for banning him. Even though he clearly and unreservedly indulged in violent ideation, including recommendations of violence against people on his partisan enemies list.
Are you arguing that fuelair's violent posts targeting conservatives were in fact incitement, and should have been treated as such? Because that's not what actually happened.
When an accurate description of the item at hand leads you to think violence is or might be necessary to end it, perhaps you should lead by example and call for that item to end, rather than complain about accurately calling a concentration camp by name.
You seem to be threatening me with unjustified violence if I don't agree with your premise and take the action you want me to take. A typical bully's tactic, and - if I may say so - probably
incitement.
