To Protect and to Serve II

#7,176
#7,176
orangeblood79 said:
Apparently UC Davis doesn't have a problem with anything he said/tweeted. I read somewhere last night that he would not face any sort of reprimand from the university.

As for what Gimaldi, or whatever his name is, said versus the UC Davis professor, there's really no comparison. One's an outright campaign to kill police officers the other is open to interpretation and said in an emotionally charged speech.

The worst part of what Gimaldi said is not the content but what was discovered after...that the SW was the result of fabricated evidence by dirty cops. It invalidated all of his outrage and disgust and turned it into just another black eye for law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Disagree... I thought he was out of line long before all the other info came out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#7,177
#7,177
Cdywolfe said:
Disagree... I thought he was out of line long before all the other info came out.
Click to expand...

Cops are discouraged from having opinions anymore, basically. You disagree with what he's saying therefore, he's wrong for saying it.

FTR, it was a misstep in judgement to call out media members and anyone "spreading the rhetoric that cops are the enemy" on the record and on a national platform like that. And given the fact that the shooting resulted from fabricated evidence, it makes him, and everyone in law enforcement, look dirty.

I disagree that stating "People think that cops need to be reformed. They need to be killed..." is simply referring to "people" and not specifically LEO's. It's on his Twitter account and plain as day.
 
#7,178
#7,178
orangeblood79 said:
Cops are discouraged from having opinions anymore, basically. You disagree with what he's saying therefore, he's wrong for saying it.

FTR, it was a misstep in judgement to call out media members and anyone "spreading the rhetoric that cops are the enemy" on the record and on a national platform like that. And given the fact that the shooting resulted from fabricated evidence, it makes him, and everyone in law enforcement, look dirty.

I disagree that stating "People think that cops need to be reformed. They need to be killed..." is simply referring to "people" and not specifically LEO's. It's on his Twitter account and plain as day.
Click to expand...

Nobody said he can't call out anybody spreading that rhetoric. As far as I'm concerned he's more than welcome to tell the world what he thinks about people who make such claims.

What he doesn't get to do is threaten people who hold a different opinion than him, at least not as a representative of the Houston PD (or whatever his official role is).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pepe_Silvia
#7,179
#7,179
Cdywolfe said:
Nobody said he can't call out anybody spreading that rhetoric. As far as I'm concerned he's more than welcome to tell the world what he thinks about people who make such claims.

What he doesn't get to do is threaten people who hold a different opinion than him, especially not as a representative of the Houston PD (or whatever his official role is).
Click to expand...
I believe he was/is the FOP or Police Union representative, I could be wrong. They get to speak more freely and with fewer consequences but speak on behalf of their agency and its LEO's.

And stating "we've got your number" or "we have our eye on you" is a bad look, especially spoken from someone with a badge. It was a a veiled threat, as compared to the outright campaigning of murdering cops (my original point), but can easily be interpreted as a threat nonetheless...a bad look regardless the context from which he was speaking (4 officers shot, etc) but an absolute black eye when it was discovered that the evidence was fabricated and the shooting resulted from dirty police work.
 
#7,181
#7,181
hog88 said:
1st amendment doesn't protect you from your employer, only the govt.
Click to expand...
Who is arguing that? I'm fully aware that the Constitution limits the power of govt, not the people.

Not sure why citizens are so bent out of shape over words? Sticks and stones...
 
#7,182
#7,182
orangeblood79 said:
Cops are discouraged from having opinions anymore, basically. You disagree with what he's saying therefore, he's wrong for saying it.
Click to expand...
Bull, you all can have your opinion. But the entire theme of this thread revolves around LEO not acknowledging that their practices and training are far below acceptable far too often. Notice I said far too often... not all the time... or not even most of the time. Just fa too often. Yet, even saying that gets the Thin Blue Line's jimmies in a bunch. I am perfectly aware that you all often see the bad side of humanity. But at least admit that far too many times, police engage in ridiculous, trivial, petty law enforcement activity that is unconstitutional and disproportionately presses a boot on the necks of the poor and downtrodden.
 
#7,186
#7,186
Matt2496 said:
I just now discovered this.

Holy ****ing ****.

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
That stuff never went away. Look up Project Mockingbird and MK Ultra. Our government isn’t what we’ve been taught that it is. Something changed after WW2. It might have something to do with bringing over NAZI scientists and giving them government jobs with Operation Paperclip. Definitely worth your time reading about these things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Obsessed and Electric Orange
#7,188
#7,188
So wait, Gamaldi is still sticking to the belief that there were "bad things" going on in that house and that the police were called there for a reason ("we weren't there by happenstance").

 
#7,189
#7,189
Rasputin_Vol said:
So wait, Gamaldi is still sticking to the belief that there were "bad things" going on in that house and that the police were called there for a reason ("we weren't there by happenstance").

Click to expand...


How hard would it be to simply say you were wrong and apologize? Crap like this is why LE is losing more and more support every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and davethevol
#7,195
#7,195
Lock him up.

In this undercover operation, it was the booze police who got stung

Also, this part:

The bar was crowded with families for Aggie parents weekend. Jergins was accompanied by two teenaged girls TABC hired for the evening. “We try very hard to use very youthful-in-appearance minors to be able to make it that much more obvious that that minor should not be sold alcohol,” Jergins explained later.
Click to expand...

In my hometown, my friend (who later became SWAT) would do this for the police when we were seniors in HS. However, he did not look young at all. He looked like he was 30 when we were 16. Grown men would've been scared shitless to try him. Freaking dick cops picking on poor college kids working at the gas station. Fighting the good fight.
 
#7,196
#7,196
n_huffhines said:
Lock him up.

In this undercover operation, it was the booze police who got stung

Also, this part:



In my hometown, my friend (who later became SWAT) would do this for the police when we were seniors in HS. However, he did not look young at all. He looked like he was 30 when we were 16. Grown men would've been scared shitless to try him. Freaking dick cops picking on poor college kids working at the gas station. Fighting the good fight.
Click to expand...

Caught in the act, Rebel’s owners accepted the equivalent of a warning against their state license to sell alcohol. Frick, meanwhile, was criminally charged for giving the teen a beer. He faced a year in jail and a $4,000 fine.
Click to expand...

Allen Frick would have come out better selling her some reefer instead.

Oh well... good to know that the cops are using every trick in the book to get these bartenders locked up.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top