If we had a justice department …

… it would be rounding up all these ghouls who are celebrating the shooting of the police officers in Compton and throwing the book at them.

16 thoughts on “If we had a justice department …”

  1. What’s the crime?

    I get that shooting a cop is a crime and that is a matter for local law enforcement. And, unless the cop was committing a crime, the shooter ought to get the needle.

    Jumping for joy that a cop is dead… Where’s the crime? Trying to find it in the Constitution or local statutes… Some might call it hate speech…which is generally protected by the 1st Amendment and which “conservatives” support…until you say something they don’t like.

    Conservatives when they are doing something libs object to and the libs want to call in the Feds: “That’s a matter for local jurisdiction. Separation of powers, federalism, and all that.” When someone does something the conservatives don’t like: “Bring in the Feds!”

    1. Inciting to violence is a crime. 18 U.S.C. 373.

      Last night I saw a video from some Antifa guy saying that ambushing and killing the two cops in Compton yesterday was a “good start.” Sounds like inciting violence to me.

      Then people blocked the entrance to an emergency room, saying they wanted the cops to die. That’s a crime.

      Simply saying “it’s great that cops are getting theirs” is not a crime. But some of these things are.

      This is no joke, people. Who’s going to want to be a cop in this environment, and what do you think the country is going to look like with a severely reduced police force?

      2. Blocking the entrance to the emergency room is a crime. Saying something is “a good start” probably would not meet the grounds for incitement of violence. I’m sure it would have to be more specific.

      3. QUOTE: Last night I saw a video from some Antifa guy saying that ambushing and killing the two cops in Compton yesterday was a “good start.” Sounds like inciting violence to me.

        Well, aren’t numerous calls on social media for the governor of Michigan to be hanged, lynched, shot, beaten or beheaded or hiring a hit man to kill her incitements of violence? As well, tweeting to millions to “Liberate Michigan” when there armed protesters confronting police and law makers…to the point they have to wear bullet proof vests to work? Yet, it seems there was no rounding up and throwing the book at these actions. In facts, some characterized them as “patriotic”. The POTUS even commented, “these are very good people…”.

        1. Why can’t you simply answer a question without doing a “what about” exercise?

          If someone is calling for violence against anyone — and particularly against a government official, like a cop or a governor — they should be investigated.

          If people incite others to violence they should be dealt with, no matter who they are, and those who threaten the civil order need to be at the top of that list. If our current laws are not adequate to address that threat, we need new laws.

          “Free speech” does not include yelling “fire” in a theater, and it should not include chants of “what do we want / dead cops / when do we want it / now” either. If you preach riot and insurrection you should be punished.

          1. QUOTE: Why can’t you simply answer a question without doing a “what about” exercise?

            Oh please, you didn’t really go there…LOL! The point, if it wasn’t obvious, is that similar behavior gets treated differently depending on the perpetrator. So, if we are going to be outraged and call for the prosecution of the ghouls in Compton then we better be just as outraged and call for prosecution when it comes from ghouls in Michigan and government officials who support the Michigan ghouls. The problem is…that doesn’t happen very often. As well, when the difference is pointed out, people get very defensive.

        2. CORRECTED:

          QUOTE: Last night I saw a video from some Antifa guy saying that ambushing and killing the two cops in Compton yesterday was a “good start.” Sounds like inciting violence to me.

          It’s indeed good to allow time to pass so facts can emerge. Seems there was a gentleman, the leader of a group that is distinct from Antifa, who made a video in which he stated…“the sheriff’s department has murdered too many of our brothers and sisters. As a matter of fact, law enforcement throughout this country has murdered too many of our brothers and sisters. So, if this is a start of retribution then I think this is a very good start”.

          Given his full statement, it sounded as if he was expressing satisfaction with police having received the treatment they’ve unjustly given to others. Although I don’t agree with his sentiment and find it highly disturbing, I think the justice department would find it challenging to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed based on this statement, in its context.

          That said, relative to this incident, there were two arrests…a protester and reporter. Seems the police indicated the reporter was arrested because she didn’t identify herself, nor carried proper press credentials and ran towards the deputies after being warned to stay back. Yet, video evidence disputed those claims. In the video, deputies can be seen approaching the reporter and she can be heard identifying herself as a reporter for KPCC, as deputies arrested her. As well, she can be seen wearing a lanyard with a card attached to it…which was later confirmed to be her press ID. At least five officers had this woman pinned to the ground and she was ruffed up quite a bit. Based on the video, it didn’t appear the woman posed a threat that warranted that type of treatment. So, if proven in a court of law that this reporter’s arrest was unjust, it will be interesting to see what law enforcement will do.

      4. QUOTE: Last night I saw a video from some Antifa guy saying that ambushing and killing the two cops in Compton yesterday was a “good start.” Sounds like inciting violence to me.

        It’s indeed good to allow time to pass so facts can emerge. Seems there was a gentleman, the leader of a group that is distinct from Antifa, who made a video in which he stated…“the sheriff’s department has murdered too many of our brothers and sisters. As a matter of fact, law enforcement throughout this country has murdered too many of our brothers and sisters. So, if this is a start of retribution then I think this is a very good start”.

        Given his full statement, it sounded as if he was expressing satisfaction with police having received the treatment they’ve unjustly given to others. Although I don’t agree with his sentiment and find it highly disturbing, I think the justice department would find it challenging to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed based on this statement, in its context.

        That said, relative to this incident, there were two arrests…a protester and reporter. Seems the police indicated the reporter was arrested because she didn’t identify herself, nor carried proper press credentials and ran towards the deputies after being warned to stay back. Yet, video evidence disputed those claims. In the video, deputies can be seen approaching the reporter and she can be heard identifying herself as a reporter for KPCC, as deputies arrested her. As well, she can be seen wearing a lanyard with a card attached to it…which was later confirmed to be her press ID. At least five officers had this woman pinned to the ground and she was ruffed up quite a bit. Based on the video, it didn’t appear the woman posed a threat that warranted that type of treatment. So, if proven in a court of law that this reporter’s arrest was unjust, it will be interesting to see what law enforcement will do.

  3. As horrific and tasteless as the celebration speech has been, isn’t that protected under the US Constitution? On what basis would a justice department “throw the book at them”? What happened to the mantra often quoted by conservatives…”I disapprove of what you say but will defend to death your right to say it”? Seems some who rail against “cancel culture” don’t mind “cancelling ” other’s rights, when they disagree with them.

    That said, if we ever get a justice department and they start rounding up citizens for horrific, crass, tasteless, despicable speech…they might want to include and “throw the book” at a purveyor of like speech which often emanates from an office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in the District of Columbia. They’d be doing a true public service, if they did!

  6. I think you could find better examples than that. Being happy that law enforcement is finally taking some action at the protests, and accidentally (I assume) hit a reporter is crude, but not that big a deal.

    Better examples would be when he recommended hitting people and offered to pay their attorneys’ fees.

Comments are closed.