• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Crosses the free speech line?

Did chanting for police "wanting dead cops now" cross free speech line?


  • Total voters
    23
If people can chant they want cops killed now, any group or anyone can want anyone individually or by category killed.

You're thoughts?

... it is impossible for police departments to craft engagement policies that prioritize budget concerns and the lives of police officers that also allows those officers and departments to have the respect of the communities they serve. Saving departments money and police officers their lives translates directly into dead and injured civilians, and expenses for the family and community of those civilians.

The reoccurring explanation is that the civilian had it coming in one of 20-30 legally interchangeable senses, only a handful of which actually pass muster in public scrutiny. Add the fact that police departments and unions will necessarily attempt to protect their own regardless of the merits of the case, and you have an environment where cops are going to be mistrusted and hated.
 
Last edited:
So when Sarah Palin says something potentially inflammatory, it's a "figure of speech." But when a small group of pissed-off people says it, it's ... what, exactly?

Are you really supporting people saying "WE WANT DEAD COPS!"

That's a threat of murder and illegal... The context was not as a figure of speech, they meant it literally. How else are you supposed to take it?


"don't back down, reload" was advocating for 2nd amendment gun laws. No-one was asking to shoot anyone... I'm amazed...
 
I can't figure out what on earth he's talking about. His "blame Kennedy for the Cuban embargo" thread was unreal in how detached from reality it was.

With such an attempt to divert with an irrelevant personal attack, it would seem that the diversion attempt is because you support that chant. You certainly won't criticize it.
 
Last edited:
So the cops on the ground hearing this should have arrested the protesters and charged them with terrorism?

Cite the law in your state, to make me and others believe it.

Or, would you be referencing "hate speech"?

CHAPTER 870
AFFRAYS; RIOTS; ROUTS; UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES
870.01 Affrays and riots.
870.02 Unlawful assemblies.
870.03 Riots and routs.
870.04 Specified officers to disperse riotous assembly.
870.041 Preservation of the public peace by local authority.
870.042 Designation of local authority.
870.043 Declaration of emergency.
870.044 Automatic emergency measures.
870.045 Discretionary emergency measures.
870.046 Filing and publication.
870.047 Duration and termination of emergency.
870.048 Violations.
870.05 When killing excused.
870.06 Unauthorized military organizations.
870.01 Affrays and riots.—
(1) All persons guilty of an affray shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) All persons guilty of a riot, or of inciting or encouraging a riot, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 35, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2406; GS 3239; RGS 5072; CGL 7174; s. 1, ch. 67-407; s. 1125, ch. 71-136.
870.02 Unlawful assemblies.—If three or more persons meet together to commit a breach of the peace, or to do any other unlawful act, each of them shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—RS 2407; GS 3240; RGS 5073; CGL 7175; s. 1126, ch. 71-136.
870.03 Riots and routs.—If any persons unlawfully assembled demolish, pull down or destroy, or begin to demolish, pull down or destroy, any dwelling house or other building, or any ship or vessel, each of them shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 7, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2408; GS 3241; RGS 5074; CGL 7176; s. 1127, ch. 71-136.
870.04 Specified officers to disperse riotous assembly.—If any number of persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled in any county, city or municipality, the sheriff or the sheriff’s deputies, or the mayor, or any commissioner, council member, alderman or police officer of the said city or municipality, or any officer or member of the Florida Highway Patrol, or any officer or agent of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, or beverage enforcement agent, any personnel or representatives of the Department of Law Enforcement or its successor, or any other peace officer, shall go among the persons so assembled, or as near to them as may be with safety, and shall in the name of the state command all the persons so assembled immediately and peaceably to disperse; and if such persons do not thereupon immediately and peaceably disperse, said officers shall command the assistance of all such persons in seizing, arresting and securing such persons in custody; and if any person present being so commanded to aid and assist in seizing and securing such rioter or persons so unlawfully assembled, or in suppressing such riot or unlawful assembly, refuses or neglects to obey such command, or, when required by such officers to depart from the place, refuses and neglects to do so, the person shall be deemed one of the rioters or persons unlawfully assembled, and may be prosecuted and punished accordingly.
 
CHAPTER 870
AFFRAYS; RIOTS; ROUTS; UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES
870.01 Affrays and riots.
870.02 Unlawful assemblies.
870.03 Riots and routs.
870.04 Specified officers to disperse riotous assembly.
870.041 Preservation of the public peace by local authority.
870.042 Designation of local authority.
870.043 Declaration of emergency.
870.044 Automatic emergency measures.
870.045 Discretionary emergency measures.
870.046 Filing and publication.
870.047 Duration and termination of emergency.
870.048 Violations.
870.05 When killing excused.
870.06 Unauthorized military organizations.
870.01 Affrays and riots.—
(1) All persons guilty of an affray shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) All persons guilty of a riot, or of inciting or encouraging a riot, shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 35, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2406; GS 3239; RGS 5072; CGL 7174; s. 1, ch. 67-407; s. 1125, ch. 71-136.
870.02 Unlawful assemblies.—If three or more persons meet together to commit a breach of the peace, or to do any other unlawful act, each of them shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.—RS 2407; GS 3240; RGS 5073; CGL 7175; s. 1126, ch. 71-136.
870.03 Riots and routs.—If any persons unlawfully assembled demolish, pull down or destroy, or begin to demolish, pull down or destroy, any dwelling house or other building, or any ship or vessel, each of them shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 7, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2408; GS 3241; RGS 5074; CGL 7176; s. 1127, ch. 71-136.
870.04 Specified officers to disperse riotous assembly.—If any number of persons, whether armed or not, are unlawfully, riotously or tumultuously assembled in any county, city or municipality, the sheriff or the sheriff’s deputies, or the mayor, or any commissioner, council member, alderman or police officer of the said city or municipality, or any officer or member of the Florida Highway Patrol, or any officer or agent of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Department of Environmental Protection, or beverage enforcement agent, any personnel or representatives of the Department of Law Enforcement or its successor, or any other peace officer, shall go among the persons so assembled, or as near to them as may be with safety, and shall in the name of the state command all the persons so assembled immediately and peaceably to disperse; and if such persons do not thereupon immediately and peaceably disperse, said officers shall command the assistance of all such persons in seizing, arresting and securing such persons in custody; and if any person present being so commanded to aid and assist in seizing and securing such rioter or persons so unlawfully assembled, or in suppressing such riot or unlawful assembly, refuses or neglects to obey such command, or, when required by such officers to depart from the place, refuses and neglects to do so, the person shall be deemed one of the rioters or persons unlawfully assembled, and may be prosecuted and punished accordingly.

Nice, except it doesn't address inciting a riot by speaking. Does it. Nice try. Freedom of speech protected.
 
Not being dishonest at all, you either have constitutional rights, or you don't.

When a crowd says "dead cops", do you really believe they mean that? I take it with a grain of salt, not much to take action on. Like saying to someone "I'm going to kill you" but I'm not, it's an expression, freedom of speech.

Might have been 50 people chanting dead cops, do you think they all meant it, literally?

:shrug: in our society to issue a credible threat is to make oneself liable. This crowd was attempting to protect a man who was actually attempting to seriously harm or kill police officers, and they were willing to use violence to do it. I'd say that their threats are credible.

If you issue a death threat against someone, well, you are liable for your statement. Don't believe me? Walk up to the Secret Service and threaten the life of the President. You don't get to spout off your mouth without ever seeing consequences for your actions.
 
There are videos of protestors marching chanting over and over and over:

"What do we want? Dead cops.
When do we want them? Now!"

Two police officers shot. The message 3 hours before this by the murderer?

“They Take 1 Of Ours . . . Let’s Take 2 of Theirs,” the post continued, ending with, “This May Be My Final Post.”

Clearly links it to the protest issue.

Does that chant cross the allowed free speech? What about A group marching chatting they want dead black people? Dead gays? Dead Muslims?

I think it does. It is clearly attempting to incite violence. I would argue it is a terroristic threat. That they "want" it shows intent. That they "want" it "now," means its tangible and imminent.

If people can chant they want cops killed now, any group or anyone can want anyone individually or by category killed.

You're thoughts?

This guy knew what he as going to do right after he shot his girlfriend; maybe even before. So for this to be blamed on demonstrators and or their motives is akin to some guy recently who killed two people (I think) at a government facility and the investigation showed him to be a radical right-winger: so Sean Hannity did it... What troubles me, is that I have yet to see thousands marching in the streets over this clear murder.
 
At least in my state, telling someone you are going to kill them in an angry or threatening way is illegal. It is a terroristic threat.

No; not terroristic, not by today's standards. It is a threat of physical harm and death. THAT is illegal just about anywhere and gets an instant restraining order.
 
:shrug: in our society to issue a credible threat is to make oneself liable. This crowd was attempting to protect a man who was actually attempting to seriously harm or kill police officers, and they were willing to use violence to do it. I'd say that their threats are credible.

If you issue a death threat against someone, well, you are liable for your statement. Don't believe me? Walk up to the Secret Service and threaten the life of the President. You don't get to spout off your mouth without ever seeing consequences for your actions.

A death threat against a specific identifiable individual is not the same as a generalized statement like "Death to cops."
 
:shrug: in our society to issue a credible threat is to make oneself liable. This crowd was attempting to protect a man who was actually attempting to seriously harm or kill police officers, and they were willing to use violence to do it. I'd say that their threats are credible.

If you issue a death threat against someone, well, you are liable for your statement. Don't believe me? Walk up to the Secret Service and threaten the life of the President. You don't get to spout off your mouth without ever seeing consequences for your actions.

Supposed threats, to an individual is a he said, she said thing. Now, if you threaten any public official or politician, that's another story.
 
Supposed threats, to an individual is a he said, she said thing. Now, if you threaten any public official or politician, that's another story.

Aren't we fortunate, then, that we life in an information age where most everything is recorded, somewhere, and available for review?
 
A death threat against a specific identifiable individual is not the same as a generalized statement like "Death to cops."

You are right. Death to Cops is incitement, no different than Death to Blacks or Death to Jews or Death to Whites, all deserving of incarceration.
 
This guy knew what he as going to do right after he shot his girlfriend; maybe even before. So for this to be blamed on demonstrators and or their motives is akin to some guy recently who killed two people (I think) at a government facility and the investigation showed him to be a radical right-winger: so Sean Hannity did it... What troubles me, is that I have yet to see thousands marching in the streets over this clear murder.

I didn't blame the chanters for the death of the officers. Rather, my claim is that what they were doing is illegal.
 
Aren't we fortunate, then, that we life in an information age where most everything is recorded, somewhere, and available for review?

Without that, life today would be impossible.

Reminds me of the film, Tom Horn, where he supposedly confessed to killing a kid with a rifle.
 
Right! I mean, it's not like minorities have ever had problems with law enforcement before. What on earth would make minorities have any sort of distrust of cops? The mind bottles.

LOL. I see what you did there. :) 'hick'
 
I didn't blame the chanters for the death of the officers. Rather, my claim is that what they were doing is illegal.

No; as long as they weren't naming a specif person it's no different that yelling , say - Death to Iran!
 
Technically, no. The shout doesn't call for imminent acts of violence. That's what you have to do in order to cross the line. It's not a constructive thing to say, but it's not illegal.
 
What about Sarah Palin's "don't retreat, reload" statement, isn't that over the top?

AND THIS....

Is where the thread derailed.....
 
You are right. Death to Cops is incitement, no different than Death to Blacks or Death to Jews or Death to Whites, all deserving of incarceration.

A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm. Inciting to riot is a class A misdemeanor.
- See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/PEN/THREE/N/240/240.08#sthash.rvD8rYb9.dpuf

I don't know much about it but it seems I don't think given the statute chanting "death to cops" rises to the the level of incitement to riot.

The guy shouting "burn this mother down" in Furguson probably does but this one I don't so.

Still it's a dumbass thing to say.
 
There are videos of protestors marching chanting over and over and over:

"What do we want? Dead cops.
When do we want them? Now!"

Two police officers shot. The message 3 hours before this by the murderer?

“They Take 1 Of Ours . . . Let’s Take 2 of Theirs,” the post continued, ending with, “This May Be My Final Post.”

Clearly links it to the protest issue.

Does that chant cross the allowed free speech? What about A group marching chatting they want dead black people? Dead gays? Dead Muslims?

I think it does. It is clearly attempting to incite violence. I would argue it is a terroristic threat. That they "want" it shows intent. That they "want" it "now," means its tangible and imminent.

If people can chant they want cops killed now, any group or anyone can want anyone individually or by category killed.

You're thoughts?

It is certainly an unsettling call to arms. But it is not ex nihilo. Is was obvious in the demonstrations following the killings of the blacks by police that the countrycountryhas a rather large problem here. It also became clear, when reading around the theme that nobody really knows what to do.
 
Indeed. That is why there were no people before digital cameras and the internet.

Sure there weren't. Before cameras and concealable recording devices, things like police brutality were hard to prove. But we wouldn't know about those because we were both born yesterday.
 
I don't know much about it but it seems I don't think given the statute chanting "death to cops" rises to the the level of incitement to riot.

I'm no mathematician, but it looks to me like more than 10 people were involved, and killing cops is the type of tumultuous and violent conduct likely to create public alarm.

Still it's a dumbass thing to say.

True enough.
 
I'm no mathematician, but it looks to me like more than 10 people were involved, and killing cops is the type of tumultuous and violent conduct likely to create public alarm.



True enough.

It's the "urges people to engage in violent action" that I think would be the sticking point. They're not actively telling people to kill anyone. (At least I don't think)
 
Back
Top Bottom