What? I'm bored and it's quiet so I'm makin' threads. Deal with it.
So, uhh, live ammo? Deadly force? For a peaceful protest? Yeah, not too bright. At the same time, I do wonder what higher standard he was being held to that would make the First Amendment irrelevent. I had no idea we could have a higher standard than the law of the land and that that standard would ignore said law.
So, uhh, live ammo? Deadly force? For a peaceful protest?
Also, now I know "live ammo" means "lethal force", not "using living things as ammo" ;)
I like the pic. Totally fits, heh. 
also, i think he's referring to the precept that someone working within the government shouldn't be seen to doubt the government as he probably beleives it makes the governmnt seem weak and unsure- while i don't agree with him- he isn't exactly irrational.
meh, there's a difference between wishing you could use deadly force and using deadly force, this is the former not the latter... he probably shouldn't have said it, but he had every right *to* say it, it may seem paradoxial but the first amendment protects the right to speak out against the first amendment- probably shouldn't have lost his job over it.
also, i think he's referring to the precept that someone working within the government shouldn't be seen to doubt the government as he probably beleives it makes the governmnt seem weak and unsure- while i don't agree with him- he isn't exactly irrational.
The thing is, this is one of those 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should' sort of situations. He can say anything he damn well pleases, IMO - whether in official capacity or as just a regular Joe. This, however, is one of those things he shouldn't have said (in official capacity). The fact that he did shows a lack of judgement. Poor judgement can be a reason for termination. While I don't agree with people losing their jobs over things they say, you can certainly follow a logical path to reach that conclusion, IMO.
I hope this helps.
meh, there's a difference between wishing you could use deadly force and using deadly force, this is the former not the latter... he probably shouldn't have said it, but he had every right *to* say it, it may seem paradoxial but the first amendment protects the right to speak out against the first amendment- probably shouldn't have lost his job over it.
also, i think he's referring to the precept that someone working within the government shouldn't be seen to doubt the government as he probably beleives it makes the governmnt seem weak and unsure- while i don't agree with him- he isn't exactly irrational.
The thing is, this is one of those 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should' sort of situations. He can say anything he damn well pleases, IMO - whether in official capacity or as just a regular Joe. This, however, is one of those things he shouldn't have said (in official capacity). The fact that he did shows a lack of judgement. Poor judgement can be a reason for termination. While I don't agree with people losing their jobs over things they say, you can certainly follow a logical path to reach that conclusion, IMO.
i would agree with you, but if i remember the article correctly he said it on his personal twitter account, hardly an official capacity- he may have defended it officially, but if he honestly thinks that he has no choice without lying to the public. Correct me if i'm wrong about the officiality of the situation.
And I want to reiterate that I don't think he should have lost his job over it.
Edit: Processors seem to be in need of maintenance as it read the inquiry incorrectly.
Still responding to a medium that you oppose in an inappropriate fashion is foolish. The department appears to be attempting to cover their metaphorical arse and distance their association with the deputy. However this doesn't mean that Cox was convinced to resign his position rather than be terminated as the details of his removal is currently confidential.
i would agree with you, but if i remember the article correctly he said it on his personal twitter account, hardly an official capacity- he may have defended it officially, but if he honestly thinks that he has no choice without lying to the public. Correct me if i'm wrong about the officiality of the situation.
The article actually says "its' refering to the magazine company's Tweeter page. As a public Official with certain authority, it is in poor taste to say that police officers should be using live amunition on protesters who are excercising their right to protest. The guy says that it is a slippery slope they are headed down when they try to silence someone for what they are saying, but it's ok for people to be silenced at the point of a gun? Sure... that makes sense. First amendement for him, bullets for you.
The article actually says "its' refering to the magazine company's Tweeter page..
I already attempted that, however my processors changed its interpretation of the inquiry as asking whether he was using a private twitter account to respond or an account that the department utilises. Of course, he may even use his own account for government purposes as well, thus I am uncertain how to judge this without further information.
i would agree with you, but if i remember the article correctly he said it on his personal twitter account, hardly an official capacity- he may have defended it officially, but if he honestly thinks that he has no choice without lying to the public. Correct me if i'm wrong about the officiality of the situation.
The article actually says "its' refering to the magazine company's Tweeter page. As a public Official with certain authority, it is in poor taste to say that police officers should be using live amunition on protesters who are excercising their right to protest. The guy says that it is a slippery slope they are headed down when they try to silence someone for what they are saying, but it's ok for people to be silenced at the point of a gun? Sure... that makes sense. First amendement for him, bullets for you.
nope- first amendment for him, first amendment for you
you have the right to say whatever it is you feel like, that doesn't mean some can't *want* to silence you, as he did not fire any bullets thats all he was doing and that in no way violates the constitutional right to free speech. at what point did he actually silence anyone at gunpoint? that being said, i do agree he's a bit of an idiot for not realizing what kind of ****storm this would bring down irregardless.
nope- first amendment for him, first amendment for you
you have the right to say whatever it is you feel like, that doesn't mean some can't *want* to silence you, as he did not fire any bullets thats all he was doing and that in no way violates the constitutional right to free speech. at what point did he actually silence anyone at gunpoint? that being said, i do agree he's a bit of an idiot for not realizing what kind of ****storm this would bring down irregardless.
In what manner was he silenced? He was let go from a job. He still has the ability to get on Tweeter and say whatever he wants. He just won't be connected to the government. He deleted the comment himself. If anything, he silenced himself. His first amendment rights are preserved.
As to him silencing protesters with bullets... no... he didn't, but he made it clear it should be done. While he wants to complain about losing a job for saying something stupid, he sees nothing wrong with saying people who are exercising their right to free assembly. He may not have done it, but by saying it, especially as a public official with certain authority, he is going down a slippery slope.
nope- first amendment for him, first amendment for you
you have the right to say whatever it is you feel like, that doesn't mean some can't *want* to silence you, as he did not fire any bullets thats all he was doing and that in no way violates the constitutional right to free speech. at what point did he actually silence anyone at gunpoint? that being said, i do agree he's a bit of an idiot for not realizing what kind of ****storm this would bring down irregardless.
In what manner was he silenced? He was let go from a job. He still has the ability to get on Tweeter and say whatever he wants. He just won't be connected to the government. He deleted the comment himself. If anything, he silenced himself. His first amendment rights are preserved.
As to him silencing protesters with bullets... no... he didn't, but he made it clear it should be done. While he wants to complain about losing a job for saying something stupid, he sees nothing wrong with saying people who are exercising their right to free assembly. He may not have done it, but by saying it, especially as a public official with certain authority, he is going down a slippery slope.
uh... where did i ever defend his statement of being silenced? though i will say that being punished for speaking your mind may run against it a bit, and losing your job could be punishment- as it discourages him from speaking his mind.
i see what you're getting at, but with all due respect him wanting to silence people or thinking they *should* be silenced, does not silence them- and he is therefore guilty of nothing, except perhaps carelessness.
his authority doesn't really affect the correctness of his personal opinion- heck the government directly contradicts itself fairly often (the federal government creating the healthcare bill, with state courts ruling agaisnt it, declaring it unconstitutional for instance). one of the main points of our (U.S) system, is that the components of it are citizens, subject to the same scrutiny as citizens- and given the same rights.
uh... where did i ever defend his statement of being silenced? though i will say that being punished for speaking your mind may run against it a bit, and losing your job could be punishment- as it discourages him from speaking his mind.
i see what you're getting at, but with all due respect him wanting to silence people or thinking they *should* be silenced, does not silence them- and he is therefore guilty of nothing, except perhaps carelessness.
his authority doesn't really affect the correctness of his personal opinion- heck the government directly contradicts itself fairly often (the federal government creating the healthcare bill, with state courts ruling agaisnt it, declaring it unconstitutional for instance). one of the main points of our (U.S) system, is that the components of it are citizens, subject to the same scrutiny as citizens- and given the same rights.
Read ZB's response. It sums it up nicely.
He's guilty of hypocritical thought. 'I should not be silenced but I'd like it if these people were.' He claims safety through a provision he states others should not be allowed to have.
true, but then a question arises... does that preclude his right to the provision? it would of course, change if he succeeded in taking it away, he would effectively be setting a precedent for it- but if he doesn't he still has access to it- because the constitution is a set of rules that are not changed by sentiment against them. Therefore, someone who is saying that people should not have complete freedom of speech still has complete freedom of speech until it is officially revoked.
The freedom is always there. The issue is that he used that freedom as a shield for himself under the auspices that it's a freedom guaranteed for all while, at the same time, claiming he'd like to shoot people because they were exercising the same right he was. If you can't see how that's hypocritical thought, I don't know what else to say to explain it.
i suppose i should clarify what i mean:
yes it is hypocritical, how does that affect his access to the right?
despite the fact that it is hypocritical for him to advocate for his own freedom of speech while claiming to want to deny it to others, he still has the right to do that- maybe i'm arguing semantics XD