Jump to content

Ferguson


TPS
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

It has everything to do with it. Again, it's not their employers who are upset, if they were it'd be a different conversation. It's the police demanding a private organization punish private citizens for daring to speak out against the police. Maybe you like living in a police state, I prefer a country where we have the right to say whatever we want -- especially about the police.

Stick to comedies, dramas aren't your strong suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 648
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

It has everything to do with it. Again, it's not their employers who are upset, if they were it'd be a different conversation. It's the police demanding a private organization punish private citizens for daring to speak out against the police. Maybe you like living in a police state, I prefer a country where we have the right to say whatever we want -- especially about the police.

 

Exactly! What gives the cops a **** to demand this. ?? What is this grade school? Way outta bounds. If the NFL wanted to punish it, then fine. They don't need the cops butting in like babies demanding that the NFL take care of this. If anything, it had the opposite effect. If I was the NFL, I would now do the exact opposite. Should have kept their traps shut.

 

Snitch and whine culture... Sorry jack boot cops, it don't work that way. And I even took your side w/Darrin Wilson. You wonder why they have an image & public trust problem in and around St. Louis. Totally overstepping their bounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stick to comedies, dramas aren't your strong suit.

 

So you think it's okay for the police to determine what is or is not appropriate when it comes to free speech? Again, forget the merits of the protest and think about what the police are actually saying with this ridiculous statement. They're the last organization in the country that should EVER take a stance on a first amendment issue unless it's to defend it -- especially when the issue is about criticizing the police themselves.

 

You might not agree with this issue, but you might care about the next one. It sets an alarming precedent -- or attempts to.

Edited by GreggyT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think it's okay for the police to determine what is or is not appropriate when it comes to free speech? Again, forget the merits of the protest and think about what the police are actually saying with this ridiculous statement. They're the last organization in the country that should EVER take a stance on a first amendment issue unless it's to defend it -- especially when the issue is about criticizing the police themselves.

 

You might not agree with this issue, but you might care about the next one. It sets an alarming precedent -- or attempts to.

It is obvious not in the police's authority to determine what political expression is allowed unless it is somehow breaking the law. Since it wasn't within their authority they can't demand it but certainly have their own free speech rights and have every right to request it. So there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think it's okay for the police to determine what is or is not appropriate when it comes to free speech? Again, forget the merits of the protest and think about what the police are actually saying with this ridiculous statement. They're the last organization in the country that should EVER take a stance on a first amendment issue unless it's to defend it -- especially when the issue is about criticizing the police themselves.

 

You might not agree with this issue, but you might care about the next one. It sets an alarming precedent -- or attempts to.

 

It seems what you are saying is cops don't have the same freedom of expression that the football players do. The SLPOA isn't dictating anything; they are expressing an opinion just like the Rams did. I still don't see the problem. They are citizens too.

 

 

The NFL made the obviously correct decision to ignore the complaint and not turn the spotlight on themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think it's okay for the police to determine what is or is not appropriate when it comes to free speech?

 

You might not agree with this issue, but you might care about the next one. It sets an alarming precedent -- or attempts to.

 

 

No one is saying that the police gets to set the standard.

 

but in this case, they are the SPECIFIC group that is "offended",

 

They are asking in that capacity, not as the authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as it pisses me off, I actually think they are helping the situation. By acting this way in a situation where most people know it's bull ****, they're making it plain as day that they aren't to be taken seriously and that charges of racism, even when picked up nationally, are usually bull ****.

 

I can see no way that thinking this BS makes this better, it makes people who are sympathetic reverse their course in my opinion. It makes sane people who understand that blacks saying they are under attack are complete morons, I think it makes people take back the benefit of the doubt that they formally were giving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has everything to do with it. Again, it's not their employers who are upset, if they were it'd be a different conversation. It's the police demanding a private organization punish private citizens for daring to speak out against the police. Maybe you like living in a police state, I prefer a country where we have the right to say whatever we want -- especially about the police.

 

Your faux outrage is cute, but not grounded in reality. They're not demanding anything, at least not with any potency. They made a request to the employers of a group of men who made a very public demonstration while at their workplace. The employers did what they felt was best and denied the request. Cops didn't ride up in there and demand apologies or blood offering at gunpoint. They made a request. They, as an organization which has the avenues and the opportunities to express the organization's views in accordance with their own first amendment rights, made a request.

 

Let's review: their organization has First Amendment rights. The players paid by the Rams, for all intents and purposes, do not have First Amendment rights while they are on the clock for their employer. So a group with collective free speech rights asked an employer with free speech rights to discipline their employees who used speech when they do not have free speech rights. The request was denied. Outrage averted (unless you're Greg or a race baiter or some sort of leftist who thinks that police are the greatest evil of our time [look, I can be dramatic too!]).

 

You want it to be about free speech, so framed everything here around free speech. The only people without free speech rights in this whole mess are the players involved, so I'm still not sure why you're so butt-hurt.

 

P.S. If you've been around these parts and paying any sort of attention over the past four or five years, you'd know exactly what I think about police, police states, militarization of police forces, etc. Regardless of how little you know about them, my thoughts on the subject have no bearing on what I think about your arguments, which are silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has everything to do with it. Again, it's not their employers who are upset, if they were it'd be a different conversation. It's the police demanding a private organization punish private citizens for daring to speak out against the police. Maybe you like living in a police state, I prefer a country where we have the right to say whatever we want -- especially about the police.

 

I say this not directly to you because all you'll do is explain how you're not a progressive. However, you are toeing the progressive line on this, so it's worth pointing out how Progressives are a funny group.

 

Consider that Rams players do a moronic protest on national TV, police ask for an apology, and progressives yell how the players have EVERY right to do what they did based on the First Amendment, even if it's on their employer's clock.

 

But let a Republican aide post a Facebook comment about the way the president's daughters dress for a public appearance, and progressives don't stop bitching and moaning until the aide is out of work.

 

Must be great to always be right simply because you can change the rules.

Edited by LABillzFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is saying that the police gets to set the standard.

 

but in this case, they are the SPECIFIC group that is "offended",

 

They are asking in that capacity, not as the authority.

Braches of the government have no rights at all, and it's appauling that anyone would approve of a governmental entity being offended by free speech.

 

They are asking, as an authority, because that's all that they are.

 

I say this not directly to you because all you'll do is explain how you're not a progressive. However, you are toeing the progressive line on this, so it's worth pointing out how Progressives are a funny group.

 

Consider that Rams players do a moronic protest on national TV, police ask for an apology, and progressives yell how the players have EVERY right to do what they did based on the First Amendment, even if it's on their employer's clock.

 

But let a Republican aide post a Facebook comment about the way the president's daughters dress for a public appearance, and progressives don't stop bitching and moaning until the aide is out of work.

 

Must be great to always be right simply because you can change the rules.

No, Greg is 100% in the right on this issue.

 

It's offensive, and wildly inappropriate, that a government agency would demand an appology, and further, would demand retribution, for individuals engaging in free speech.

 

What the NFL decideds to do is immaterial.

 

Your faux outrage is cute, but not grounded in reality. They're not demanding anything, at least not with any potency. They made a request to the employers of a group of men who made a very public demonstration while at their workplace. The employers did what they felt was best and denied the request. Cops didn't ride up in there and demand apologies or blood offering at gunpoint. They made a request. They, as an organization which has the avenues and the opportunities to express the organization's views in accordance with their own first amendment rights, made a request.

 

Let's review: their organization has First Amendment rights. The players paid by the Rams, for all intents and purposes, do not have First Amendment rights while they are on the clock for their employer. So a group with collective free speech rights asked an employer with free speech rights to discipline their employees who used speech when they do not have free speech rights. The request was denied. Outrage averted (unless you're Greg or a race baiter or some sort of leftist who thinks that police are the greatest evil of our time [look, I can be dramatic too!]).

 

You want it to be about free speech, so framed everything here around free speech. The only people without free speech rights in this whole mess are the players involved, so I'm still not sure why you're so butt-hurt.

 

P.S. If you've been around these parts and paying any sort of attention over the past four or five years, you'd know exactly what I think about police, police states, militarization of police forces, etc. Regardless of how little you know about them, my thoughts on the subject have no bearing on what I think about your arguments, which are silly.

Neither the government, nor agents of the government, have rights.

 

The police are not a private organization. They are the executive branch of the government.

 

Individual officers have rights as individuals when not acting as agents of the government, but this is not the case in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Greg is 100% in the right on this issue.

 

It's offensive, and wildly inappropriate, that a government agency would demand an appology, and further, would demand retribution, for individuals engaging in free speech.

 

Explain that to Elizabeth Lauten.

 

More to the point, I'm not arguing that Greg is wrong. I'm arguing that progressives are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to something like the First Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither the government, nor agents of the government, have rights.

 

The police are not a private organization. They are the executive branch of the government.

 

Individual officers have rights as individuals when not acting as agents of the government, but this is not the case in question.

 

Actual question that I haven't found an answer to: is the SLPOA a government entity? I thought it was more like a benevolent association, which operates separate from the police and not as agents of the government.

 

Edit: I guess Darin answered my question. The answer is no.

Edited by LeviF91
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear everyone: The St Louis Police Officer's Association IS NOT a government entity.

 

Carry on.

It's a organization designed to "protect the rights of police officers".

 

Their membership includes active officers (government agents).

 

The officers membership in this organization is as a function of their role as government agents, not private citizens.

 

When a group of government agents band together to form a "private organization" in order to further their agenda as government agents, as stated in the organization's own charter; it doesn't serve to blur the line, and make that advocacy OK. It's simply a disgusting attempt to mask the intentions of government agents, especially when the demands of the organization are to muffle free speech directed at the member government agents.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a organization designed to "protect the rights of police officers".

 

Their membership includes active officers (government agents).

 

The officers membership in this organization is as a function of their role as government agents, not private citizens.

 

When a group of government agents band together to form a "private organization" in order to further their agenda as government agents, as stated in the organization's own charter; it doesn't serve to blur the line, and make that advocacy OK. It's simply a disgusting attempt to mask the intentions of government agents, especially when the demands of the organization are to muffle free speech directed at the member government agents.

 

So...it's a union?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BOOM THREAD DERAIL IMMINENT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...