The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Eric Garner was murdered by a police officer. "I can't breath" were his last words. In response, people across the country have been using "I can't breath" as a motto against police brutality.

 

When another police officer responds with "Breath Easy, Obey the Law" in this context, it's clearly an implied threat or at least approval of the excessive force that caused Garner's death.

 

The fact that you have to provide context to the speech you find offensive/wrong is a good argument for why it should be protected.

[StrangeSox]

So if a teacher tells students that billions of people will die if climate change isn't addressed, are they threatening students? Because that is very similar to what is being said on the T-shirt. There is no claim that this officer will do it. None at all.

 

In one, you have a teacher telling students what he believes (and the science may back up to some extent but maybe not billions) will be the global consequences of climate change. He is not threatening anyone. He is not trying to justify or excuse harm that will come to anyone. He's not saying it's okay to kill the CEO of Exxon to stop this. Whether or not his comments belong in the classroom is a different discussion, especially since we were focused on off-the-job comments.

 

In the other, you have a police officer telling people that their concerns over police brutality up to and including killing a man who presented no threat and just had some cigarettes are merit-less and that if they don't want to be killed or otherwise brutalized by the police, they just need to 'obey the law.'

 

One of these situations is about impersonal and natural forces. Another is about conscious human behavior by authority figures.

[southsider2k5]

The fact that you have to provide context to the speech you find offensive/wrong is a good argument for why it should be protected.

 

Seriously. That standard would allow me to say that nazi's killed millions of people. You called the President a Nazi. You just threatened the President, now you can go to jail for a federal crime.

[Jenksismyhero]

In one, you have a teacher telling students what he believes (and the science may back up to some extent but maybe not billions) will be the global consequences of climate change. He is not threatening anyone. He is not trying to justify or excuse harm that will come to anyone. He's not saying it's okay to kill the CEO of Exxon to stop this. Whether or not his comments belong in the classroom is a different discussion, especially since we were focused on off-the-job comments.

 

In the other, you have a police officer telling people that their concerns over police brutality up to and including killing a man who presented no threat and just had some cigarettes are merit-less and that if they don't want to be killed or otherwise brutalized by the police, they just need to 'obey the law.'

 

One of these situations is about impersonal and natural forces. Another is about conscious human behavior by authority figures.

 

The problem here is that you're seriously arguing that this shirt is an actual threat. That's laughable.

[StrangeSox]

That is an incredibly low standard for the first amendment. If taking words from other instances to turn them into perceived threats, you have basically opened up the legitimacy of turning anything into a reason to take away freedom's of speech.

I don't know if he has first amendment protections or not. As a non-lawyer, I presented one argument that seems possibly could be made. His shirt makes a comment on police policy and procedure and how he will conduct his job. If that's not in line with department or legal standards, that could be an issue.

 

I have a bigger issue with "breath easy-obey the law" and the message conveyed by it actually being his policing mentality than his dumb shirt.

[southsider2k5]

In one, you have a teacher telling students what he believes (and the science may back up to some extent but maybe not billions) will be the global consequences of climate change. He is not threatening anyone. He is not trying to justify or excuse harm that will come to anyone. He's not saying it's okay to kill the CEO of Exxon to stop this. Whether or not his comments belong in the classroom is a different discussion, especially since we were focused on off-the-job comments.

 

In the other, you have a police officer telling people that their concerns over police brutality up to and including killing a man who presented no threat and just had some cigarettes are merit-less and that if they don't want to be killed or otherwise brutalized by the police, they just need to 'obey the law.'

 

One of these situations is about impersonal and natural forces. Another is about conscious human behavior by authority figures.

 

It doesn't even rise to the level of saying that this WILL happen to you if you don't X, which is still a huge level below if you do X I will do Y to you. This is a level below that saying that if you DON'T X, nothing bad will happen to you.

 

Again for my tastes, it is an incredibly flimsy argument to take away the first amendment, and one that would be easy to exploit.

[StrangeSox]

The problem here is that you're seriously arguing that this shirt is an actual threat. That's laughable.

The words on that shirt are easily perceived as a threat. Obey or be killed. That's what happened to Garner, and that's what this shirt is about.

[StrangeSox]

The fact that you have to provide context to the speech you find offensive/wrong is a good argument for why it should be protected.

Absent context, the shirt makes no sense. The shirt was created with this specific context in mind. The creator of the shirt freely admits it.

[southsider2k5]

I don't know if he has first amendment protections or not. As a non-lawyer, I presented one argument that seems possibly could be made. His shirt makes a comment on police policy and procedure and how he will conduct his job. If that's not in line with department or legal standards, that could be an issue.

 

I have a bigger issue with "breath easy-obey the law" and the message conveyed by it actually being his policing mentality than his dumb shirt.

 

If this is the case, then there is evidence that he isn't performing at his job, and you have actual causation to fire him.

[StrangeSox]

It doesn't even rise to the level of saying that this WILL happen to you if you don't X, which is still a huge level below if you do X I will do Y to you. This is a level below that saying that if you DON'T X, nothing bad will happen to you.

 

It's saying that if you don't obey the law, the police might choke you to death. That's what actually happened.

 

Again for my tastes, it is an incredibly flimsy argument to take away the first amendment, and one that would be easy to exploit.

 

My comments are really more about his s***ty policing mindset. Given that it's a public job, I think it'd be very difficult for the officer to be fired, reprimanded or stopped from selling the shirts.

 

edit:

 

If this is the case, then there is evidence that he isn't performing at his job, and you have actual causation to fire him.

I think that's more or less what I'm trying to get at, but that still seems like somewhat of an end-around on the free speech issue. It is still different from the teaching example though because his speech is directly about how he will perform his job.

Edited December 17, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

The words on that shirt are easily perceived as a threat. Obey or be killed. That's what happened to Garner, and that's what this shirt is about.

 

No they're not. It's a commentary in response to other commentary. It is not a threat of actual harm. It's not a promise of future action. No reasonable person would see that shirt and think "that cop is going to kill me or hurt me."

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Absent context, the shirt makes no sense. The shirt was created with this specific context in mind. The creator of the shirt freely admits it.

 

Precisely the point. Rights of free speech shouldn't be curbed because you find it offensive or you have some take on the words that cause it to be offensive. If it's not offensive on it's face, if it's not creating imminent danger on its face, it's protected.

[StrangeSox]

No they're not. It's a commentary in response to other commentary. It is not a threat of actual harm. It's not a promise of future action. No reasonable person would see that shirt and think "that cop is going to kill me or hurt me."

 

Why not? That's the exact message behind it. Obey or the police will hurt you, possibly even kill you, like they did to Eric Garner.

 

Precisely the point. Rights of free speech shouldn't be curbed because you find it offensive or you have some take on the words that cause it to be offensive. If it's not offensive on it's face, if it's not creating imminent danger on its face, it's protected.

 

The guy is absolutely free to say that on his own. The question is if the city or the PD could prevent him from saying that while employed by them or if those actions would run afoul of first amendment protections. You as a private citizen are absolutely free to say that, print those shirts, etc.

Edited December 17, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Am I reading this right, so you guys are saying this is ok because of free speech?

 

I'm not even sure whether it's as intimidating as SS says...but free speech = an employer cannot limit your ability to say certain things a condition of employment?

[StrangeSox]

Am I reading this right, so you guys are saying this is ok because of free speech?

 

I'm not even sure whether it's as intimidating as SS says...but free speech = an employer cannot limit your ability to say certain things a condition of employment?

Given that it's a government position, there is usually pretty strong free speech protections for employees. If this were a private employer without a union, it wouldn't even be a question. With a union, it might be different if the employer couldn't show just cause or whatever depending on what the contract said.

[Jenksismyhero]

Am I reading this right, so you guys are saying this is ok because of free speech?

 

I'm not even sure whether it's as intimidating as SS says...but free speech = an employer cannot limit your ability to say certain things a condition of employment?

 

I'm sure this violates some kind of police protocol/procedure. If that's fireable, i'm ok with him being fired. But if you're going to argue teachers and professors should be protected from employment actions based on free speech rights, this guy should be afforded the same protections.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why not? That's the exact message behind it. Obey or the police will hurt you, possibly even kill you, like they did to Eric Garner.

 

It's not advocating action. It's not promising action. It's providing a "response" to the "I can't breathe" message. That's it. If you think that's a legitimate threat, literally anything can be a threat.

[StrangeSox]

I'm sure this violates some kind of police protocol/procedure. If that's fireable, i'm ok with him being fired. But if you're going to argue teachers and professors should be protected from employment actions based on free speech rights, this guy should be afforded the same protections.

My understanding is that any public employee has pretty broad free speech protections, e.g. viewpoint discrimination. I was mixing up my personal objection to the shirt and its message with whether or not the city council/PD can or should do something to the officer in question. Beyond asking him not to do it, I don't know that they can or should. If they wanted to be more productive and make a point about it, they could call for a review of police policy and procedure and use-of-force protocols etc.

 

It's not advocating action. It's not promising action. It's providing a "response" to the "I can't breathe" message. That's it. If you think that's a legitimate threat, literally anything can be a threat.

 

"I can't breathe" is a message about excessive police force. This is a response to that message coming from a police officer. To me, that says "this is how I police," which, given the Garner situation, is a threat. Speaking colloquially here, not legal terminology of what constitutions a legal threat.

Edited December 17, 2014 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

It's not advocating action. It's not promising action. It's providing a "response" to the "I can't breathe" message. That's it. If you think that's a legitimate threat, literally anything can be a threat.

It does seem like a reasonable standard to hold a law enforcement officer to in their contract would be that they're not allowed to publicly endorse things that a reasonably large number of people they have jurisdiction over would find personally intimidating.

 

So whether you personally would think it's a threat or not, if you were an african american in that community, I think you'd take a different message from it, and that's the important point, it's another aspect of breaching the community's trust.

 

That said, I doubt most local police contracts are all that well thought out to hit exact standards and legal language.

[Jenksismyhero]

It does seem like a reasonable standard to hold a law enforcement officer to in their contract would be that they're not allowed to publicly endorse things that a reasonably large number of people they have jurisdiction over would find personally intimidating.

 

So whether you personally would think it's a threat or not, if you were an african american in that community, I think you'd take a different message from it, and that's the important point, it's another aspect of breaching the community's trust.

 

That said, I doubt most local police contracts are all that well thought out to hit exact standards and legal language.

 

I think that response of his is just typical meat-head, cop speak though. If Brown and Garner were white and there was an uproar over police brutality/killings, the response from cops would be the same. The whole "don't do anything illegal and it won't be a problem" has been a long-time justification for police action/intrusion.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I think that response of his is just typical meat-head, cop speak though. If Brown and Garner were white and there was an uproar over police brutality/killings, the response from cops would be the same. The whole "don't do anything illegal and it won't be a problem" has been a long-time justification for police action/intrusion.

I get you, but you gotta admit to some people it wouldn't come off that way. Similar example - how well does "Sports locker room" talk go when it is taken out into the public? Suddenly the kinds of things people say jokingly behind closed doors start getting people fined or fired because a specific group will not take things the same way.

 

The problem here would be that he has to work with these people, he's armed and they're required to work with him on any number of levels. The community he's serving could just chalk this up as yet another reason not to trust their own police force, and "communities not trusting the local police force" is literally at the heart of all these topics.

[pettie4sox]

I think the officer got a little too smart for his own good; poor judgement is all he is guilty of and that's just my opinion.

 

On a related note, will police killings rise as a result of what's happening lately?

Edited December 17, 2014 by pettie4sox

[Balta1701]

I think the officer got a little too smart for his own good; poor judgement is all he is guilty of and that's just my opinion.

 

On a related note, will police killings rise as a result of what's happening lately?

From the places where data is available, when body cameras are added the amount of violent encounters between police and citizens declines so dramatically that it would be the dominant effect if these major departments follow through on purchasing them. Something like >50% decrease on both sides when people knew the police were wearing body cameras.

[southsider2k5]

Of course they sold 2000 shirts overnight after the SB City council questioned the shirts.

[illinilaw08]

From the places where data is available, when body cameras are added the amount of violent encounters between police and citizens declines so dramatically that it would be the dominant effect if these major departments follow through on purchasing them. Something like >50% decrease on both sides when people knew the police were wearing body cameras.

 

Body cameras aren't a cure-all. There are 4th Amendment issues that will need to be resolved. There will be police reports where the camera either wasn't turned on or malfunctioned (both could come from benign or malicious intent).

 

Body cameras will help - both officers and the public should want them and advocate for them. But there are going to be plenty of speed bumps regarding their implementation nation-wide.