It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Indiana State Prosecutor Fired Over Remarks About Wisconsin Protests

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Indiana State Prosecutor Fired Over Remarks About Wisconsin Protests




Cox, according to Weinstein, called the demonstrators "political enemies" and "thugs" who were threatening to injure elected officials.

"You're damned right I advocate deadly force," Cox purportedly wrote, according to the Mother Jones article. He also called the author a "typical leftist," and wrote, "liberals hate police."
source


This of course happened Wednesday so it isn't breaking news. It is however, something that should be brought to people's attention especially those that believe that:

  • That peaceful protests will not be met with violence.
  • That everyone in government is not completely against the people.


The fact that this person was fired should be a strong indication of the above points. We know that several states including Indiana and my home state of Ohio are considering legislation along Wisconsin's lines. We also know that there are protests occurring against those proposals, but they are not the focus of the media's attention.

Many people predict that there will another Civil War or Revolution in the US. And I am one of those people, I believe it whole-heartily. Others say that we are too comfortable in the US. That nothing will get us off the couch.

So I ask, would a sanctioned armed action of firing live ammunition into a crowd of peaceful protestors be enough of a spark to elicit a proportionate response from the people? Just look at that quote. "...'political enemies' and 'thugs' who were threatening to injure elected officials."

It makes you wonder just how deeply that sentiment is shared amongst elected and appointed officials.




posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
this is bad if a civil war starts then we will have no choice but kill our brothers,fathers,mothers,friends, and sisters



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


S & F. I have to admit that even I was shocked at how casual that remark seemed to flow off his lips. To have a high-ranking state official with an attitude like that shows how close we are to becoming a banana republic in the best of times, not to mention when things get a little rough. He should never have been employed in the first place.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The initial comment ("use live ammunition") was bad enough, but then he re-affirmed it again with the "damned right I advocate deadly force" comment.

Popular euphemisms for fighting or opposing something aren't a big deal, if it's kept to the locker-room variety, but not this "gun violence" nonsense. Problem is when you use that sort of language, people can't tell if you're joking or are another Jared Loughner.

The "empty the clip", "use live ammunition", "use deadly force", or drawing gun-sights rhetoric is just signs of weak minds and threats of extreme violence, much more so than the milder, more-common locker-room euphemisms like "kick a**" or "get bloodied".

Not only should they have fired this guy but they should give him a pysch eval before ever letting him hold a public office or even a gun again.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Don't overlook that both sides are ramping up the rhetoric....

Dem Rep to unions:...

A democratic congressman from MA is quoted in relations to the WI protests as saying "I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,”

Yet, this barely makes any waves....



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
I think it's because that comment is still well within the acceptable norms of locker-room euphemisms, and doesn't invoke gun-violence.

He could have just as easily said "kick a**" as "get a little bloody", but it's hard to see "use live ammunition" or "use deadly force" as anything other than shooting and gun violence.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
That strangely reminds me of what is going on in Libya.


By the way here is an Obama quote



The president stated that when a leader's only means of staying in power is to use mass violence against his own people, he has lost the legitimacy to rule


See this thread
Obama to Qaddafi: Leave Libya Now



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Using live ammunition on peaceful demonstrators is definitely an excessive use of force and violation of natural rights, regardless of the circumstances. I agree that should politicians be harmed the protesters must be moved, possibly by force, but that is not the case and no event in the past week has shown that any protest in Madison has been violent or threatening.

Now to your point regarding civil war or revolution, I find myself in a state of conflict regarding this issue. While I like to think of myself as generally counterrevolutionary, one being opposed to consequences of revolution and revolutions altogether, nothing in this government has proven itself worthy of defending or preserving. They perform no acts which either build us up financially or spiritually, they do not keep order outside of what they deem is necessary to protect their investments, and have provided the people with nothing more than an atmosphere of mistrust and inequality.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Don't get me wrong, I detest what was said by both. But we also know this congressman from MA is known to invoke more violent measure and supports them.

May it be by firearm or pick axes and baseball bats, is there really a distinction? You are making excuses for one, but condoning another. You cannot have both ways but then condemn one side over the other because they were a little more vague in their wordage.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Don't overlook that both sides are ramping up the rhetoric....

Dem Rep to unions:...

A democratic congressman from MA is quoted in relations to the WI protests as saying "I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,”

Yet, this barely makes any waves....


As I have pointed out before, you get bloody from being injured. You even get bloody from the use of guns against you. I am not sure what you think you heard or read but getting bloody refers to standing up against the dogs, firehoses, battons, and bean bags usually used against protestors when the government does not like them.

Nice try at equating "get bloody" with "deadly force."



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


See my post above. I also recommend you actively read a bit more rather than jerk at my response. I never equated the two, just merely pointed out that both sides have engaged actively in jacking up the rhetoric. Some more subtly than most; similarly to the protectionist attitude that we saw with Palin's cross hair map in relation to the Democratic maps with cross hairs. Condemn who you oppose but condone those you relate to....such is the case of American politics.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


"It makes you wonder just how deeply that sentiment is shared amongst elected and appointed officials."

Excellent point, but the more dangerous issue is how deeply is that sentiment shared amongst working class americans themselves? Considering that 90 percent or so aren't Union members, this thing could get serious before it's done.

This is starting to look much grimmer.



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by St-Patrick
 


I did read that article shortly before I started reading my my MSM News RSS feeds. Which is why this article in the OP stood out for me as interesting.

Surely we all agree that Cox's statements are wrong ideas and should not be representations of our officials. But you have to wonder if he has grounds for a case for being fired for the expression of ideas under the First Amendment?

But that tyrannical mindset is what worries me most. Well, that and ones that have the same views yet will not express them in order to retain their power.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


See my post above. I also recommend you actively read a bit more rather than jerk at my response.


Noted and dismissed but thanks for caring. Maybe you should read your posts over again becase this phrase-


I never equated the two,


Is wholly negated by this phrase -


just merely pointed out that both sides have engaged actively in jacking up the rhetoric.


I highly suggest you read your own posts over a few times.

Thanks.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Which I have not pointed to any specifics! Stop projecting. I stated that both sides have engaged and ramped up the rhetoric. I have not taken sides in this debate, as it is framed as I believe it is silly and erroneous.

One calls for blood specifically via a certain means.....he is condemned (as should be!).
Another calls for blood with ambiguous terms and he is protected!

Irony at its best.....

Keep trying though. I enjoy this.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join