To Protect and to Serve II

#7,177
#7,177
ETV said:
Are you implying with this in reference to LEO? Last time I checked, officers are not actively calling for citizens to be killed, in particular ultra liberal college professors that have ZERO comprehension of what the real world is like outside their classroom.
Click to expand...
You missed that rant that the Houston police rep had when he said that cops had their eyes out on people that don't lick the boots of cops and spew criticisms at them. He didn't go into detail about what he meant by keep an eye on...
 
#7,179
#7,179
Rasputin_Vol said:
Dammit that 1st Amendment...
Click to expand...

So you're saying everything is OK because it's covered under the first amendment? General public and officers safety be damned?

For an example, run into a crowded theater and yell fire and once everyone is out, tell them you're joking and that your comments are protected under the first amendment.
 
#7,182
#7,182
hog88 said:
1st amendment doesn't protect you from your employer, only the govt.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#7,183
#7,183
Jesus... The guy threatened anybody who was critical of law enforcement. I'm sorry that he he's a toddler and can't control his idiotic emotions. That doesn't change what he said or make it okay.
 
Last edited:
#7,184
#7,184
The professor talked about killing people. The other douche was part of an organization that makes up lies in order to get permission to kick down doors and actually kill people. Then he has the balls to go on TV and threaten anybody who doesn't like it. You're right... There really isn't any comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and Pepe_Silvia
#7,185
#7,185
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
#7,186
#7,186
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.
 
#7,187
#7,187
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
#7,188
#7,188
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.
 
#7,190
#7,190
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...
 
#7,191
#7,191
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.
 
#7,193
#7,193
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#7,195
#7,195
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 isnโ€™t what weโ€™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
#7,197
#7,197
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").

 
#7,198
#7,198
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
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top