Cop Pointing Rifle At Ferguson Protestors: "I Will Fucking Kill You"

[saveliberty]

Been a tough week all the way around. Just a guess, but think he took more verbal abuse this week than he dished out.

Doesn't matter. He's been trained to be a professional who can handle tough situations. Oh....this is Ferguson P.D. Sorry, forgot. They shoot first and ask questions later.

He is a person. He probably let dozens of people off the hook this week. You do realize that if you are too close to someone with an assault rifle you might not be able to raise it? Your last comment is uncalled for until proof is released. Do you even care we have a Constitution in this country?

Interesting that everyone's fall back in defending this scourge of a police department is to tell me to go read the Constitution.

Meanwhile, you condone the Ferguson PD to act in secrecy and release material and videos which try Michael Brown in the court of public opinion.

Maybe the Ferguson PD should read the Constitution.

Police investigations are never public, you are simply being dishonest here. Do you deny Michael robbed the store? We at least know that is fact, everything else is hearsay at this point. Court of public opinion? That is laughable, you would have this officer in the electric chair by now if you could.

Police reports are public, and Ferguson PD won't release one.

The video of Brown robbing the store is irrelevant to the shooting. But it baits stupid people like you and they know it.

How can Wilson be placed in an electric chair when he won't even show up, show his so-called injured face and face the public?

Face the public? Now who is stupid?

 

[saveliberty]

There is no final report, it is still an investigation. You are truly clueless.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

No, he was killed resisting arrest. Try to be accurate in your rants. Not that the one above was unwarranted.

You are using a double negative in a sentence.
The killing of Eric Garner by chokehold has been verified as a homicide by the NYPD.
Brown's killing has NOT been verified as resisting arrest, since the FPD won't say anything.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Been a tough week all the way around. Just a guess, but think he took more verbal abuse this week than he dished out.

Doesn't matter. He's been trained to be a professional who can handle tough situations. Oh....this is Ferguson P.D. Sorry, forgot. They shoot first and ask questions later.

He is a person. He probably let dozens of people off the hook this week. You do realize that if you are too close to someone with an assault rifle you might not be able to raise it? Your last comment is uncalled for until proof is released. Do you even care we have a Constitution in this country?

Interesting that everyone's fall back in defending this scourge of a police department is to tell me to go read the Constitution.

Meanwhile, you condone the Ferguson PD to act in secrecy and release material and videos which try Michael Brown in the court of public opinion.

Maybe the Ferguson PD should read the Constitution.

Police investigations are never public, you are simply being dishonest here. Do you deny Michael robbed the store? We at least know that is fact, everything else is hearsay at this point. Court of public opinion? That is laughable, you would have this officer in the electric chair by now if you could.

Police reports are public, and Ferguson PD won't release one.

The video of Brown robbing the store is irrelevant to the shooting. But it baits stupid people like you and they know it.

How can Wilson be placed in an electric chair when he won't even show up, show his so-called injured face and face the public?

Face the public? Now who is stupid?

George Zimmerman did. And guess what, there were angry black people in Orlando after he killed Trayvon Martin, too.

 

[Rotagilla]

Of course, they don't, but feel free to keep making false claims.

Don't be ridiculous.
Have you heard of disturbing the peace? blocking a sidewalk? blocking traffic? trespassing? violating curfew?..All illegal...You don't understand the first amendment and how it works...but that's fine. You clearly don't want to.

What's to understand? It's pretty clear language;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

It does not protect rioters or looters obviously. It does protect law abiding citizens right to protest. It cannot be abridged under the guise of inforcing petty misdemeanors such as "tresspassing" (unless on private property) or "blocking the sidewalk". The reason the anti-federalists insisted on the Bill of Rights was they didn't think the Constitution was clear enough in defending citizens against the power of government. That function should be fundamentally supported by any true conservative.

And I believe the curfew was lifted on the 18th. Looks like this incident happened on the 19th.

There are many limits to "free speech" even though you'd like to use the literal interpretation that anyone can say anything, anytime, anywhere. You're wrong.

Here read this "mr constitutional scholar"
Look at the link...take the time to educate yourself so you actually know what you're talking about regarding the 1st amendment

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress


Freedom of Speech and Press:
Exceptions to the First Amendment
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment—of the ways
that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide
no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.
For example, the Court has decided that the First Amendment provides no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
action.”

The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to
commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children,
speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech. Even speech that enjoys
the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place,
and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant
government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Furthermore,
even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the
basis of its content if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny” (i.e., if the government shows that the
restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is “the least restrictive means to further
the articulated interest”)

 

[saveliberty]

No, he was killed resisting arrest. Try to be accurate in your rants. Not that the one above was unwarranted.

You are using a double negative in a sentence.
The killing of Eric Garner by chokehold has been verified as a homicide by the NYPD.
Brown's killing has NOT been verified as resisting arrest, since the FPD won't say anything.

You used a double negative. FPD doesn't have to say one word until the investigation is final.

 

[saveliberty]

Been a tough week all the way around. Just a guess, but think he took more verbal abuse this week than he dished out.

Doesn't matter. He's been trained to be a professional who can handle tough situations. Oh....this is Ferguson P.D. Sorry, forgot. They shoot first and ask questions later.

He is a person. He probably let dozens of people off the hook this week. You do realize that if you are too close to someone with an assault rifle you might not be able to raise it? Your last comment is uncalled for until proof is released. Do you even care we have a Constitution in this country?

Interesting that everyone's fall back in defending this scourge of a police department is to tell me to go read the Constitution.

Meanwhile, you condone the Ferguson PD to act in secrecy and release material and videos which try Michael Brown in the court of public opinion.

Maybe the Ferguson PD should read the Constitution.

Police investigations are never public, you are simply being dishonest here. Do you deny Michael robbed the store? We at least know that is fact, everything else is hearsay at this point. Court of public opinion? That is laughable, you would have this officer in the electric chair by now if you could.

Police reports are public, and Ferguson PD won't release one.

The video of Brown robbing the store is irrelevant to the shooting. But it baits stupid people like you and they know it.

How can Wilson be placed in an electric chair when he won't even show up, show his so-called injured face and face the public?

Face the public? Now who is stupid?

George Zimmerman did. And guess what, there were angry black people in Orlando after he killed Trayvon Martin, too.

You have a selective memory.

 

[Rotagilla]

Of course, they don't, but feel free to keep making false claims.

Don't be ridiculous.
Have you heard of disturbing the peace? blocking a sidewalk? blocking traffic? trespassing? violating curfew?..All illegal...You don't understand the first amendment and how it works...but that's fine. You clearly don't want to.

What's to understand? It's pretty clear language;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

It does not protect rioters or looters obviously. It does protect law abiding citizens right to protest. It cannot be abridged under the guise of inforcing petty misdemeanors such as "tresspassing" (unless on private property) or "blocking the sidewalk". The reason the anti-federalists insisted on the Bill of Rights was they didn't think the Constitution was clear enough in defending citizens against the power of government. That function should be fundamentally supported by any true conservative.

And I believe the curfew was lifted on the 18th. Looks like this incident happened on the 19th.

So according to Smed, I cannot restrict anyone from assembling in my living room!

Additionally, protestors can block non protestors from accessing and moving along a public sidewalk.

What a country aye smed?

Did you miss the "private property" acception Pops? If someone tries to assemble in your living room you can probably legally shoot them. In some jurisdictions at least.

Did you miss the sidewalk issue, you can't protest and restrict others RIGHTS to the use of public amenities?

The police are perfectly within their rights to insist that the protestors keep moving. Watch the videos and note, the protestors also are using the property of individuals when they protest. How many of them do you suppose gave consent?

The protestors are not the only ones with rights, but it's OK if others rights are trampled on, or should we ask the police to watch over it to minimize damage?

LMAO..if he wants to test whether or not he has "free speech" he should make a threat against a certain govt official...Let's see how that exercise of "free speech" works out for him.

 

[Rotagilla]

That USMB conservatives seek to defend the officer's clearly inappropriate actions is unsurprising, telling, and troubling.

Specifically, what "inappropriate actions"?

 

[SmedlyButler]

Of course, they don't, but feel free to keep making false claims.

Don't be ridiculous.
Have you heard of disturbing the peace? blocking a sidewalk? blocking traffic? trespassing? violating curfew?..All illegal...You don't understand the first amendment and how it works...but that's fine. You clearly don't want to.

What's to understand? It's pretty clear language;

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

It does not protect rioters or looters obviously. It does protect law abiding citizens right to protest. It cannot be abridged under the guise of inforcing petty misdemeanors such as "tresspassing" (unless on private property) or "blocking the sidewalk". The reason the anti-federalists insisted on the Bill of Rights was they didn't think the Constitution was clear enough in defending citizens against the power of government. That function should be fundamentally supported by any true conservative.

And I believe the curfew was lifted on the 18th. Looks like this incident happened on the 19th.

There are many limits to "free speech" even though you'd like to use the literal interpretation that anyone can say anything, anytime, anywhere. You're wrong.

Here read this "mr constitutional scholar"
Look at the link...take the time to educate yourself so you actually know what you're talking about regarding the 1st amendment

CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress


Freedom of Speech and Press:
Exceptions to the First Amendment
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment—of the ways
that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide
no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech.
For example, the Court has decided that the First Amendment provides no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such
action.”

The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to
commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children,
speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech. Even speech that enjoys
the most extensive First Amendment protection may be subject to “regulations of the time, place,
and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant
government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” Furthermore,
even speech that enjoys the most extensive First Amendment protection may be restricted on the
basis of its content if the restriction passes “strict scrutiny” (i.e., if the government shows that the
restriction serves “to promote a compelling interest” and is “the least restrictive means to further
the articulated interest”)

Thanks for going to the trouble of rounding up that info, always interested in that kind of Constitutional detail. Those remarks on "Free speech" though don't really have anything to do with the freedom to assemble which I was particularly addressing ( I emphasized that by bolding it in my quote of the First A, maybe you didn't notice. You seem to be reading something into my post I didn't say).

 

[Rotagilla]

Thanks for the info, always interested in that kind of Constitutional detail. Those remarks on "Free speech" though don't really have anything to do with the freedom to assemble which I was addressing and which I emphasized by bolding it in my quote of the FirstA.


Thanks for going to the trouble of rounding up that info, always interested in that kind of Constitutional detail. Those remarks on "Free speech" though don't really have anything to do with the freedom to assemble which I was particularly addressing ( I emphasized that by bolding it in my quote of the First A, maybe you didn't notice. You seem to be reading something into my post I didn't say).

Ok..I apologize if I was hostile.
Mea culpa...

I'm so used to dealing with immature, rude, smart assed know-it-alls in here that I forgot my manners.
Thanks for the polite reply.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Thanks for the info, always interested in that kind of Constitutional detail. Those remarks on "Free speech" though don't really have anything to do with the freedom to assemble which I was addressing and which I emphasized by bolding it in my quote of the FirstA.


Thanks for going to the trouble of rounding up that info, always interested in that kind of Constitutional detail. Those remarks on "Free speech" though don't really have anything to do with the freedom to assemble which I was particularly addressing ( I emphasized that by bolding it in my quote of the First A, maybe you didn't notice. You seem to be reading something into my post I didn't say).

Ok..I apologize if I was hostile.
Mea culpa...

I'm so used to dealing with immature, rude, smart assed know-it-alls in here that I forgot my manners.
Thanks for the polite reply.

Oh yeah, and any screw-ups in my posting and quoting outcomes I'm blaming on the new forum software for the next 30 days!

 

[Pop23]

The police aren't trained to go through night after night of warfare. He obviously had reached the end of his tether.

The answer is to start giving the police real military training. To militarize the police so to speak.

Victim of what?

Being yelled at?

Oh the horrors

Go out and point a rifle at someone and threaten to kill them and let me know how that works out for you.

I had one pointed in my face years ago. It does change the way you think.

Sure you did, and sure it didn't

Geez

We'll just take your word for it. ammirite

 

[Synthaholic]

The cop should IMMEDIATELY be removed from duty. Period

Civil disobedience, whether I agree with it or not, is NOT punishable by death.

I have disobeyed direct police orders & never once had my life threatened verbally.

I support the police but not rogue actions by individuals who CLEARLY aren't stable enough to wear a badge.

I disagree with you, he was simply making the seriousness of the situation evident. Did you see he was backed by others, he was not a lone individual, he was in a group.
Orders that you will be shot will not harm you and intimidation is a non violent and non lethal form of crowd control!!

Grow up and act like an adult, these are not snot nozed teens who have committed some kind of minor party foul!!

Walking down the middle of the street is now major?

You're an idiot.

 

[Synthaholic]

The police aren't trained to go through night after night of warfare. He obviously had reached the end of his tether.

The answer is to start giving the police real military training. To militarize the police so to speak.

The Ferguson terrorists are learning from the ISIS terrorists. How long before they behead someone from CNN?

Then they are no longer a civilian peace keeping force you fucktard.

It looks like you just called yourself a fucktard.

Saves me the trouble.

 

[Rotagilla]

What a clown.

 

[Synthaholic]

There is a difference between protesting and rioting.

Protesting is protected, rioting is not.

If this was a group entirely made up of peaceful protestors, I would agree that this behavior would be inexcusable.

But we all know it wasn't.

The looters are supposedly from out of town - Texas and Illinois, I heard.

 

[Synthaholic]

What's your position in taking threads off topic when you begin to lose?

What is the difference in the two situations?

You said:

Better to intimidate than to allow an escalation resulting in an actual live fire.

Is that what you supported at the Bundy ranch? Federal agents intimidating the ranch occupants with massive force to avoid escalation?

How are the two different?

Oh, Bundy lives in Missouri and was burning down Kwik Trips?

Loons will be loons

You've always been a poser who can't debate. I didn't expect you to get any smarter.

 

[Katzndogz]

The officer in question had been on the streets for ten nights. He is now on medical leave indefinitely. Likely this will mean early service related retirement. Per the Kelly File.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Bundy people and supporters didn't ride into Las Vegas and riot and smash and burn stores. They also never took a shot at cops or threw burning bottles at them.

Kinda different. I don't agree with the Bundy crowd but they didn't act like this.

You're using a few isolated cases of looting to smear the entire crowd and town.

What if there was no looting at all, but all those black folk were protesting carrying handguns and assault rifles?

Would you support them? Would you be screaming for the cops to stop the tyranny?

Of course not. Double standard based on race.