Cop Allegedly Urged Drivers To Run Over Black Lives Matter Protesters

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
They are "just protesting"....

Death to piggies....

Burning neighborhoods down.....

Not your average peaceful group by any means.

This is called stereotyping and is the underlying source of racism/bigotry. It allows people to rationalize the unrationalizable. Things like running protesters over with cars.

Saying what they actually did is not stereotyping, it is called stating facts.

Just keep digging

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Blocking the street isn't rioting. Glad to see we got another person in the thread who wants to run people over with cars then justify it later as self defense...

PS: To others such as yourself who appear to want to run people over with cars, the police AREN'T agreeing with this officer. As I pointed out on page 1, the police HAVE issued a statement saying that this officer was in the wrong here.

Here it is again:

We are aware of the concerns surrounding the comment posted on Facebook and are actively investigating. The statement is offensive, disappointing, concerning and does not reflect in any way—or align with—the views, values and practices of the Saint Paul Police Department.

The entire department, starting with Chief Thomas Smith, has worked tirelessly to develop partnerships throughout the community, and we have a long history of supporting individuals and groups who wish to express their opinions. There is no tolerance within the department for employees who insult, threaten or attempt to silence those exercising their First Amendment rights.

So if you do as you said and run these people over because of past BLM events in cities other than the one you are in, YOU WILL GO TO JAIL. Seriously as the guy above me said, keep digging that hole.

Contrary to popular belief, protestors don't get a pass to break certain laws. They also don't get to dish out mob violence just as non protestors don't get to dish it out to them.

I feel some protests now are losing their focus on the cause and just becoming self center bs for many of the people in them. If your beef is with the police or government, screwing the roadway isn't doing anything to help how people view your cause. A good chance it hurts it in many people's eyes.

a reply to: roadgravel

Did you know back in the day, the POINT of a protest was to inconvenience others? You marched in the streets to make sure people saw you. You performed sit-ins at restaurants so that the authorities HAD to throw you out. Do you think people are going to notice you if you stand off on a corner somewhere that no one is looking? I think you have a misplaced idea of what protesting is and was.

Just like to point out... if you detain someone against there will and do not have a legal right to do so.. its a form of kidnapping.

Blocking a bridge so traffic cant proceed, and you cannot go back (most bridge I've seen near a big city are packed most hours)... well I would say you have a legal argument for kidnapping.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ask 10 of them why they are doing it and see what you get for answers. I still feel are just wanting a shield to make trouble. As the commercial says "It's what we do".

Protesting against police treatment is to get the police to arrest you. I like the plan.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I think you are confusing kidnapping with unlawful detention, and the key word is 'unlawful'. Being stuck in traffic is not unlawful. Kidnapping is an act of taking someone against their will.

a reply to: roadgravel

Irrelevant. That doesn't mean you get the right to run them over with a car when they block the street.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Irishhaf

I think you are confusing kidnapping with unlawful detention, and the key word is 'unlawful'. Being stuck in traffic is not unlawful. Kidnapping is an act of taking someone against their will.

Kidnapping is an act of taking someone against their will.

It can also be not allowing a person to leave a place for a certain length of time. But as you mention, a traffic jam isn't going to qualify.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: roadgravel

Irrelevant. That doesn't mean you get the right to run them over with a car when they block the street.

I never agreed with running over people is a correct action.

My feeling is that people have little if any say anymore, so protests don't do much. People should still try it for the right reasons but real change isn't going to be peaceful without new leaders who care about people, not money and power trips.

How do these caring leaders become leaders? That is the question that seems to have no answer.

originally posted by: roadgravel

How do these caring leaders become leaders? That is the question that seems to have no answer.

There is currently one running for President. Bernie Sanders. So to answer your question, vote for them.

There are approximately 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the US at present. Take any random group of just under a million people and you're bound to have at least one of them who is an idiot. Heck, take any group of 10-20 people and you're bound to have one of them be an idiot or a person who holds some extreme opinion on some subject.

Failbook is a website forum like any other, like ATS even; it is not a national register or an official anything. It is just a place where people go on the internet to express an opinion. I'm sure no one has ever posted any sort of a crazy opinion here on ATS, right? (extreme sarcasm intended).

The point(s) here are this:

1. That one police officer posts some crazy crap on Failbook does not mean it represents the beliefs of 899,999 other officers whom are also LEOs.

2. Failbook carries no more weight in society than an internet forum for genital warts sufferers. Failbook does not speak for law enforcement as a whole, or society, or anything else.

3. Clearly this particular officer was foolish for not recognizing his posting would be scrutinized more heavily because of his profession, and that his profession (in general) is in the spotlight of late. However, we must all be mindful that expression of opinion does not equate to the commission of an act.

4. Statements need to be taken and digested in context. While the officer’s statement may seem cavalier and outrageous as general advice, if the same statement was put into the context of the Ferguson riots or the LA riots it might be sound advice after all. So in and of itself the statement could have merit depending on the situation.

5. The internet is replete with much ado about nothing. This is yet another example. This was one person whose post was a really bad idea, and likely not very good for his career path, but beyond this it’s pretty much irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

The world still turns.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He is a candidate I'll be watching to make my decision.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just can't miss an opportunity to throw that Democratic political candidate card into seemingly every single thread you post on, can ya?

Last time I checked your thread was about the crazy on-line ramblings of some off the wall cop. How exactly, will your Democratic presidential candidate change this (don't answer this, PLEASE, it was rhetorical)...or was it off-topic????

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

It's fine. Chill out dude. I'm not intending to start going on about Sanders. I just brought him up as a response to the person I was talking to's concern. I fully intend to continue to talk about "the crazy on-line ramblings of some off the wall cop."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Judging from the official police department press release condemning the statement by the officer, I'd say the matter has elevated itself to the proper levels, wouldn't you?

(Queue deceased equine and commence flogging)

Carry on...

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Those peace loving angels would never harm anyone, how dare you post examples of them acting like a pack of rabid animals violating everyone's.....oh wait not everyone's, just opposite races of themselves my bad.....RIGHTS with assaults.

Common sense dictates that innocent commuters know from being told by their insurance and authorities to never leave the scene of an accident. This was good common sense advice so that a universal rule of thumb would not endanger innocent commuters from deadly mob violence.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yes I would. I think it will be handled appropriately.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is a very sad thing to see; it's even worse when folks see stories like this and label all of police because of the few corrupt officers. I suppose it's all part of the plan to federalize the police and cause civil unrest.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
They are "just protesting"....

Death to piggies....

Burning neighborhoods down.....

Not your average peaceful group by any means.

This is called stereotyping and is the underlying source of racism/bigotry. It allows people to rationalize the unrationalizable. Things like running protesters over with cars.

Saying what they actually did is not stereotyping, it is called stating facts.

Just keep digging

Do you really want digging up ugly and others for calling black people animals just because they complained about unjustified po-lice shooting or killings of unarmed Blackmen??? trust me I can go real deep and ugly .
here is a sample of what's out there .

Yeah this is part of the ugly carried on in other forms to cops telling ppl to run over black ppl who dare make your asses uncomfortable for an afternoon..

You fuks who like to call blk ppl animals and can't make a distinction between a protest and a riot look at your animalistic nature, you still go around justifying crap no different from two generations past.... I'll stop this min before going over board.