On 7/4/2020 at 9:52 AM, Bluespunk said:

The guy who responded “Ha ha” was involved in the incident that lead to the death of dead man the other officers mocked. 
 

He’s got much worse coming his way I suspect. 
 

 

“Colorado Governor Jared Polis has appointed a special prosecutor to review the case, and this week the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice said they are investigating whether McClain's civil rights were violated.”

So he'll be charged with laughing? Mmmmmk.

 

4 hours ago, johnpetersen said:

This is not a question of criminal law so I have no idea why you're asking for a link to statutes.

Never heard of civil statutes and laws? Wow. OK.

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

So he'll be charged with laughing? Mmmmmk.

 

No.
 

If you had the wit to read my post properly you would realise that there is an enquiry opening into the actions of police officers involved in the death of the man these officers were mocking. 

 

The ex officer who responded “ha ha” is one of those who were involved. 
 

mmmmmk indeed

Edited July 5, 20206 yr by Bluespunk

On 7/4/2020 at 10:25 PM, ChouDoufu said:

 

in that case, how 'bout we wait until he's convicted?

if this is anything like the chauvin/floyd situation, he should do time.

but what if he's found not guilty of whatever charges are brought?

 

and is "haha" a hanging offense?  could be considered in poor taste, but not necessarily actionable.  prosecutor would have to prove intent as well.  perhaps it wasn't a jolly haha, but a sardonic/sarcastic response to three idiots teasing him about his problems at work.  either way, a firing for "haha" unlikely to survive a court test.

 

 

 

Only politically correct humor is now acceptable. Only politically correct responses to any humor is now acceptable.

 

All acceptable humor must be pc and approved by the radical left.

 

This photo was in extremely bad taste by the 3 officers in it. The response by the fourth was simply a haha. Possibly he didn't find it funny or in good taste but didn't know what else to respond.

 

US getting more like a Marxist state with thought control and all behavior must be pc approved.

 

Bad taste, definitely. Stupid certainly. Did it deserve disciplinary action, yes for sure. But firing - wonder what the union will have to say.

 

Knee jerk responses by Mayors wishing to be seen to be pc now seems the order of the day.

 

 

Edited July 6, 20206 yr by Baerboxer

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Only politically correct humor is now acceptable. Only politically correct responses to any humor is now acceptable.

 

All acceptable humor must be pc and approved by the radical left.

 

This photo was in extremely bad taste by the 3 officers in it. The response by the fourth was simply a haha. Possibly he didn't find it funny or in good taste but didn't know what else to respond.

 

US getting more like a Marxist state with thought control and all behavior must be pc approved.

 

Bad taste, definitely. Stupid certainly. Did it deserve disciplinary action, yes for sure. But firing - wonder what the union will have to say.

 

Knee jerk responses by Mayors wishing to be seen to be pc now seems the order of the day.

 

 

3 were fired after choke holding killed a guy, the 4th, not involved in the killing, resigned.

Anything wrong with firing them? Anything wrong with someone resigning?

 

You write 'bad taste' 'stupid', but that doesn't seem a reason for firing.

18 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

No.
 

If you had the wit to read my post properly you would realise that there is an enquiry opening into the actions of police officers involved in the death of the man these officers were mocking. 

 

The ex officer who responded “ha ha” is one of those who were involved. 
 

mmmmmk indeed

 

Yes, I read that the Colorado governor is retaliating against the photos by trying to find some way to get revenge.

Just now, Crazy Alex said:

 

Yes, I read that the Colorado governor is retaliating against the photos by trying to find some way to get revenge.

That might be what you choose to believe, but that isn’t what is happening. 

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

That might be what you choose to believe, but that isn’t what is happening. 

How do you know that?

8 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

How do you know that?

 

Oh, I dunno...maybe read it "somewhere".

14 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

How do you know that?

Here’s how

 

cops sacked early july

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-53287892

 

25 June: article on the reinvestigation 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53182122

 

The investigation was ordered before the photos came out and the cops were sacked. 

Edited July 6, 20206 yr by Bluespunk

26 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Oh, I dunno...maybe read it "somewhere".

Well, there's your problem right there. Really, it all comes down to when this *review* was initiated. If it was before these photos came to light, great! Proceed. If it was after, it's likely retaliatory and political. Pretty simple.

 

29 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Well, there's your problem right there. Really, it all comes down to when this *review* was initiated. If it was before these photos came to light, great! Proceed. If it was after, it's likely retaliatory and political. Pretty simple.

 

No problems here. But since you're having difficulties following your own posts (or pretending to), here they are again

 

 

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

Yes, I read that the Colorado governor is retaliating against the photos by trying to find some way to get revenge.

 

1 hour ago, Crazy Alex said:

How do you know that?

 

57 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Oh, I dunno...maybe read it "somewhere".

 

Not too complicated, really.

Have some mercy on them. They were not mocking the black guy. They were mocking the way they look, their sh*tty low wage jobs and their pathetic life. 

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

No problems here. But since you're having difficulties following your own posts (or pretending to), here they are again

 

 

 

 

 

Not too complicated, really.

 

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

No problems here. But since you're having difficulties following your own posts (or pretending to), here they are again

 

 

 

 

 

Not too complicated, really.

Well, that settles.... nothing.

1 minute ago, Crazy Alex said:

 

Well, that settles.... nothing.

 

"Nothing" is an apt summation of your last few posts on this topic.

 

Quote

 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

When Hall attributed this remark to Voltaire he overlooked the fact Voltaire took the post of Government Censor and spend years pursuing Rousseau for having said things in books that Voltaire’s masters found disagreeable.

 

 

Edited July 6, 20206 yr by Chomper Higgot

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

When Hall attributed this remark to Voltaire he overlooked the fact Voltaire took the post of Government Censor and spend years pursuing Rousseau for having said things in books that Voltaire’s masters found disagreeable.

 

 

what a strange response!

 

you went out of your way to attack the messenger, who was not the source of the quote, for not living up to the standard he was incorrectly cited as espousing.

 

note i did not cite voltaire as a source.  i quoted the famous quote as a model i wish to attain.  you for some reason apparently feel that an ideal sourced from an imperfect human should be rejected.  voltaire was imperfect, therefore we should not defend free speech?

 

do you also reject "judge a man not by the color of his skin" because king was a communist and adulterer?

 

do you reject living your life as though "all men are created equal" because one famous person who wrote it in some famous document was a slaveowner?

Edited July 7, 20206 yr by ChouDoufu

On 7/6/2020 at 12:27 AM, wabothai said:

What? You mocking poverty? despicable.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.

On 7/6/2020 at 12:31 AM, wabothai said:

read between the lines, and who says it.

Why should I and why should I take notes about what any particular poster says?

On 7/5/2020 at 6:04 PM, Bluespunk said:

 I never said they should be exempt from action. 
 

I understand why they did what they did and have every sympathy for what their actions. 
 

I have said I wouldn’t have done it that way myself, however sometimes direct action is what it takes to spark a debate and a change in perception.
 

Ah, so rioting, destruction of property not your own, mob rule is OK as long as it conforms to the hysteria cause of the day?

You may not be actually saying that, but it certainly seems like it.

8 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

what a strange response!

 

you went out of your way to attack the messenger, who was not the source of the quote, for not living up to the standard he was incorrectly cited as espousing.

 

note i did not cite voltaire as a source.  i quoted the famous quote as a model i wish to attain.  you for some reason apparently feel that an ideal sourced from an imperfect human should be rejected.  voltaire was imperfect, therefore we should not defend free speech?

 

do you also reject "judge a man not by the color of his skin" because king was a communist and adulterer?

 

do you reject living your life as though "all men are created equal" because one famous person who wrote it in some famous document was a slaveowner?

He's trying to be clever. 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why should I and why should I take notes about what any particular poster says?

If you don't take note of what posters are saying here, the only point of coming on here is to vent your own anger, trying to get others to take note about what you're saying.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, so rioting, destruction of property not your own, mob rule is OK as long as it conforms to the hysteria cause of the day?

You may not be actually saying that, but it certainly seems like it.

Please quote where I said rioting or destruction of property or mob rule was ok. 
 

Or is that just you choosing to decide what I am saying? A deliberate misinterpretation as such. 

Edited July 8, 20206 yr by Bluespunk

Elijah McClain was killed by the cops after a 911 caller reported a man acting "sketchy", the 911 caller stated that they (the caller) were in no danger, and apparently that the person they were reporting on had not committed a crime.  The cops used excessive force even though Elijah McClain had committed no crime.  The argument could be made that the cops should have ignored the Gladys Kravitz 911 call, should have driven right past Mr. McClain, should have spoken to him and moved on when he clearly had committed no crime.  To now be yucking it up over this young man's death shows the essential depravity of these cops.  My number one emotion concerning this is deep sadness at the death of a young man at the hands of bully boy cops.  I think it has to stop.

Edited July 9, 20206 yr by cdemundo
large font, not sure why

On 7/9/2020 at 4:30 PM, cdemundo said:

Elijah McClain was killed by the cops after a 911 caller reported a man acting "sketchy", the 911 caller stated that they (the caller) were in no danger, and apparently that the person they were reporting on had not committed a crime.  The cops used excessive force even though Elijah McClain had committed no crime.  The argument could be made that the cops should have ignored the Gladys Kravitz 911 call, should have driven right past Mr. McClain, should have spoken to him and moved on when he clearly had committed no crime.  To now be yucking it up over this young man's death shows the essential depravity of these cops.  My number one emotion concerning this is deep sadness at the death of a young man at the hands of bully boy cops.  I think it has to stop.

So, start a movement to rid your town/ city of cops, like has already happened elsewhere. Then you'll only have to worry about the criminals.