Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Amazing how often Stealthy doesn't seem to care about the 1st Amendment but when the 2nd Amendment gets brought up he's in full defense mode for it.
I strongly suggest that you stop with these sweeping generalizations. It just discredits anything you have to say further.
Why in the hell would you ever do that?
I was using the headline from the link and quoting the head of the Police Union, not just one individual police office. Also, the Houston PD has yet to say that he does not speak for them or is only speaking for the Union or himself - until they do that or add some sort of disclaimer then it appears that the powers that be share his public statements.
I've also kinda defended stealthy because at least he'd engaged and my initial interactions with him at least led me to infer he read what I wrote. And it's not like his views and opinions are much different from the views of the many people who live near me.
Not just an officer, in which case I'd agree with you. This was the Police Officer's Union President. For a position that high, he should know better.
You didn't make a sweeping generalization. A sweeping generalization is applying a general rule to a specific instance (without proper evidence). In hindsight, I suppose Stealthy didn't necessarily either and made more of a hasty generalization where he extrapolates one instance where he probably saw one liberal criticize police and, without evidence or support, made the blanket statement that all liberals bash the police whenever they can (when, obviously, not all liberals do).
Some of us find it entertaining and humorous seeing someone go in circles trying to defend something. Some enjoy debating. It's a political forum, that's what a lot of it is.
Be careful. He reported me last week and got me suspended for three days. Yeah, he's THAT guy.
People are often inconsistent with how they defend different parts of the Constitution. Seems rather natural really.
The forum really isn’t all that complex. If you get suspended you have no one to blame but yourself.
There’s nothing entertaining or humorous about someone spamming the board with what has to be trolling or lies. The only other options left are you are arguing with a child or someone who is not able to grasp simple concepts. People have repeatedly asked you guys to stop replying to him - if you insist on replying to him I’m going to insist on pointing out how you are helping to ruin the forum.
It was implied that if you are tracking people that would involve some sort of constant surveillance or monitoring of some sort, at the very least social media accounts. And this would have a chilling effect on free speech and probably not withstand a court challenge
No, the mod misread the post and the quote that was given for the TO was incomplete/not what the post said.
oh implied .... so he didn't say tracking or surveillance really?
I'm 100% in favor of 1st ...... and if a person or group or media verbally attacks police, and talks anti-police stuff, they should be held accountable and responsible for doing that don't you think ? that's 100% acceptable for people to be able to speak their mind AND be held accountable for what they say/speak/type as well
Yes he did, it was in the OP:
It is really hard to take you seriously when you can't be bothered to read a thread before making an uninformed comment.
It all depends on what that person says about the police. If someone is criticizing the police because they don't think they are doing their job well then they have the right to do so without punishment. People also have the right to call out police if they are abusing their powers, profiling or shooting innocent people.
Yeah, that's not a contradiction at all.
Even as the head of the police union he is not speaking for the “police” unless he states it as an official policy. The thread title should read “police union head states”, or “police captain states”, something like that.
Still not a peep out of the Houston PD distancing themselves from his comments, so they obviously support his statement.
Reminds me of when I got banned for a year for something I said to another poster regarding something that happened at a cornhole. A mod misunderstood the comment, thought I was insulting the poster and brought down the hammer. Luckily I was able to text the other FBG he messaged the mod and I got restored and got an apology.
maybe because there was nothing to distance themselves from and all the overreaction ..... is overreaction and nothing more
The hot take came out of the cop's mouth. He made a statement that implies they would be targeting people and disregarding the 1st amendment. Some people weren't really happy with that. Kind of like someone saying they would take your guns away. Yeah, that usually gets a reaction.
He didn't try to remove any first amendment rights. He said they are going to keep tabs on those with anti-police rhetoric. I would too with all the cop shootings lately. Kind of a sad world when there's more outrage about that quote than it is about four cops getting shot. B-b-b-but tribal politics
