• 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!

Officer "Go **** Yourself" Threatens to kill journalist

sangha said:
Actually, the video shows exactly what this journalist was doing before he had the gun pointed at him. He was walking through the crowd
Click to expand...

Not the point, and calling him a journalist is rank exaggeration. The point is, we don't know what caused the officer to raise his rifle in the first place. When the nob with the camera and his buds start filming the officer he already has the rifle raised.
 
clownboy said:
Not the point, and calling him a journalist is rank exaggeration. The point is, we don't know what caused the officer to raise his rifle in the first place. When the nob with the camera and his buds start filming the officer he already has the rifle raised.
Click to expand...

We know exactly what caused the officer to point his rifle at the journalist - incompetence and a lack of professionalism.

The journalist did nothing to justify the officer to point a gun at him. Surprisingly, a gun can be lowered once it's been raised.
 
sangha said:
We know exactly what caused the officer to point his rifle at the journalist - incompetence and a lack of professionalism.

The journalist did nothing to justify the officer to point a gun at him. Surprinsingly, a gun can be lowered once it's been raised.
Click to expand...

No, we don't know that. The officer already had his rifle raised. In fact they heard about an officer with their weapon raised and that's what drew these nobs, who once again are NOT journalists.
 
CanadaJohn said:
There probably isn't a day that goes by when I don't shout at the TV 'go **** yourself" to some asshole "journalist" who thinks they run the world and are entitled to be anywhere and do anything they want.

That said, the officer was out of line and should be pulled from this duty immediately and perhaps should also have a long, forced, break from any duty. It's impossible to know what stress he's been under the past couple of weeks in Ferguson - probably no less stressful than some have had trouble coping with in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The officer is clearly at a dangerous point in his mental state, but I'm not prepared to call him a terrorist.
Click to expand...

There's little surprise that a cop pointing his rifle at people committing no crime, telling them that he'll kill them, and telling them to go **** yourself would find excuse and justification on the right. Can't speak for Canada, perhaps the police have always been so rude and belligerent towards the public. But I remember a time in America when this wasn't the case. Anymore such obnoxious police behavior is common place.
 
clownboy said:
That is an anti-cop frame of view on the situation that doesn't reflect the reality. The police are not the government, they are local law enforcement and the nobs seeking attention were not the press. Not to mention, we still do not know what went before.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's anti-cop. Is that because you can't answer it? Because if someone holds a gun or a fake gun to a cop, it's OK to shoot them because it's a threat. But if a cop holds a gun up to the press...well that's not a threat. Right?

It's interesting how much waffling you have to do to make ends meet.
 
clownboy said:
Unless you were there, you're telling us a lie. The video doesn't show that.
Click to expand...

The journalist did nothing that justifies the cop pointing the gun at him. You may not know this, but the video proves that this is true.
 
Ikari said:
Oh, it's anti-cop. Is that because you can't answer it? Because if someone holds a gun or a fake gun to a cop, it's OK to shoot them because it's a threat. But if a cop holds a gun up to the press...well that's not a threat. Right?

It's interesting how much waffling you have to do to make ends meet.
Click to expand...

No, it's anti-cop because your characterization of what happened ignores anything that doesn't fit YOUR anti-cop attitude. Once again, there are great distinctions in law between police and non-police. They may carry weapons in places where non-police may not and would be considered armed and dangerous if they did.

Your continued characterization of these idiots as "press" is laughable.
 
sangha said:
The journalist did nothing that justifies the cop pointing the gun at him. You may not know this, but the video proves that this is true.
Click to expand...

Once again, the officer already had the rifle raised when the camera got there. There is no indication of what caused him to raise the rifle. The video proves this is true.
 
clownboy said:
Once again, the officer already had the rifle raised when the camera got there. There is no indication of what caused him to raise the rifle. The video proves this is true.
Click to expand...

If the officer raised his rifle in response to a threat, he should have lowered it when the threat no longer existed.
 
Montecresto said:
There's little surprise that a cop pointing his rifle at people committing no crime, telling them that he'll kill them, and telling them to go **** yourself would find excuse and justification on the right. Can't speak for Canada, perhaps the police have always been so rude and belligerent towards the public. But I remember a time in America when this wasn't the case. Anymore such obnoxious police behavior is common place.
Click to expand...

Please, feel free to point out anywhere in my comment you responded to where I "excused" or "justified" the officer's actions. I did say that he should be off duty immediately and in for at least a long break from duty. I also said that considering the past couple of weeks in Ferguson, the officer may be under a lot of stress and that he was clearly at a dangerous point in his mental state. So what part of that excuses or justifies? It tries to provide a rationale but I refused, as was the author of the OP's want, to call the officer a terrorist.

Unlike most people on the left, most of us on the right don't see this as a partisan or ideological issue and are prepared to condemn the actions of the officer here and have said it's wrong, even though we generally support law enforcement and those who do that difficult job.
 
clownboy said:
No, it's anti-cop because your characterization of what happened ignores anything that doesn't fit YOUR anti-cop attitude. Once again, there are great distinctions in law between police and non-police. They may carry weapons in places where non-police may not and would be considered armed and dangerous if they did.

Your continued characterization of these idiots as "press" is laughable.
Click to expand...

So this anti-freedom characterization of what happened ignores anything that doesn't fit YOUR anti-free press attitude.

There is a big difference between police and citizen. Police are government, and government is restricted.
 
clownboy said:
The video doesn't show anything illegal, just a bunch of asshats taunting the police, and an officer with his rifle raised (that's not illegal btw, maybe against policy, depends on what caused him to raise his rifle). Again, we don't know what happened before.
Click to expand...

So in your world threatening to kill somebody is not an illegal act? Really?
 
clownboy said:
Yes, probably illegal. Police are authorized to carry and display in all sorts of venues and manners that non-police are not. It's a question that really isn't germane to the situation.
Click to expand...

Nobody, not even cops, are allowed to threaten to kill someone.

Is threatening to kill someone a crime? - Avvo.com

Of course this is California. Maybe in Missouri threatening the life of somebody is just all in a day's work.
 
sangha said:
If the officer raised his rifle in response to a threat, he should have lowered it when the threat no longer existed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And as I previously said, he probably violated policy. But not illegal and your argument that you somehow magically know why he raised his rifle in the first place is done.
 
so pointing a rifle at somebody and stating "I'm going to ****ing kill you" isn't evidence of intent? Would he actually have to pull the trigger before you would be satisfied as to intent?

It's a very interesting legal world you live in.
 
clownboy said:
See my previous post. The two events aren't anywhere near analogous.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about 'events'. I'm talking about the frickin' law. It's against the law to threaten to kill somebody. Jesus, what don't you get about that?
 
Wiggen said:
so pointing a rifle at somebody and stating "I'm going to ****ing kill you" isn't evidence of intent? Would he actually have to pull the trigger before you would be satisfied as to intent?

It's a very interesting legal world you live in.
Click to expand...

Nope, not in this context or the way this happened. And yes, the real world I live in is very interesting, you should try it. It's quite different from the world you've only read about.
 
Wiggen said:
so pointing a rifle at somebody and stating "I'm going to ****ing kill you" isn't evidence of intent? Would he actually have to pull the trigger before you would be satisfied as to intent?
Click to expand...

Intent could still be defense and a warning of what employing force would likely result in.

If you force me to defend myself, the lethal force that I am legally entitled to will likely result in your death.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
I also heard the people saying he was pointing the gun at "my hands are up sir".. Then the office saying "I will ****ing kill you". Then someone asking the officer "what his name was?". Officer replies "go **** yourself".
Click to expand...
His brother is in the movie production business...


and he is a hell of a dancer...

 
Wiggen said:
I'm not talking about 'events'. I'm talking about the frickin' law. It's against the law to threaten to kill somebody. Jesus, what don't you get about that?
Click to expand...

Cases then. And again no it's not unless it's provable to a reasonable man that there is real intent to harm behind that threat. Even in California.
 
clownboy said:
No, it's anti-cop because your characterization of what happened ignores anything that doesn't fit YOUR anti-cop attitude. Once again, there are great distinctions in law between police and non-police. They may carry weapons in places where non-police may not and would be considered armed and dangerous if they did.

Your continued characterization of these idiots as "press" is laughable.
Click to expand...

It's anti-cop because pointing firearms at the press telling them to STFU is perfectly fantastic? An interesting take indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom