Detroit police arrest four for threats against cops


#1

“Detroit police arrested four men for allegedly threatening on Facebook to kill police officers, police Chief James Craig said Sunday. One of the men reportedly posted: “All lives can’t matter until black lives matter. Kill all white cops.” The arrests of the four African-American Detroiters follow Thursday’s slayings of five Dallas officers by a black sniper during a protest march. The man blamed for the killings and injuries to seven others reportedly told police he wanted to kill as many white cops as possible.” Detroit police arrested four men for allegedly threatening on Facebook to kill police officers, police Chief James Craig said Sunday.

One of the men reportedly posted: “All lives can’t matter until black lives matter. Kill all white cops.”

The arrests of the four African-American Detroiters follow Thursday’s slayings of five Dallas officers by a black sniper during a protest march. The man blamed for the killings and injuries to seven others reportedly told police he wanted to kill as many white cops as possible.

detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2016/07/11/detroit-police-arrest-four-threats-cops/86930930/

Haven’t had a chance yet to see if this news story has made it on the CNN Breaking News or the MSNBC Shows with Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow or Lawrence O’Donnell.


#2

The internet is a breeding ground for hateful idiots but they are mostly protected by the 1st amendment. The police chief admitted a much in the article, he said he was looking for a statute, state or federal under which these four could be charged.


#3

I am in NO WAY anti-law enforcement, but all those in uniform and charged with protection of civilian lives need to remember every single time they put on that uniform, that anything they do will be judged against ALL who wear the uniform and not just them. I fully understand once you are forced into a position were force is your percieved only option, it’s hard to know when to stop, but you need to always keep the bigger picture in mind, you need to protect not only the civilians, but your fellow officers by making as sure as possible your actions are correct and measured.

I read a scifi story a while back, about interplanetary space cops, the key character made a statement several times, “my job isn’t to punish the criminals, just to make them behave.”

I always liked that idea…


#4

It should be viewed like shouting fire in a crowded theatre, Inciting others to violence. The press needs to step up their game and stop giving the violence inciting types a soapbox.


#5

I think most are aware of this. In todays age anytime a cop even talks to someone they pretty much already assume they are being recorded, usually by themselves if they have cameras.

Most officers I know of love the body cameras since the vast majority of the time they collaborate the officers story and show the courts what the suspect was really doing at the time instead of the BS sob story they come up with at court.

As for quotes: I think my favorite comes from the TV show Third Watch (A NYPD, NYFD drama series) when the veteran cop states the rookie:

Veteran Cop: Our job. What are we doing out here?

Rookie: Enforcing the law.

Veteran: No, we’re solving problems. We go from job to job solving problems as quickly as we can and move on the next.

I think this goes well to bring to light all that officers really have to do everyday from arresting bad guys, rendering medical aid, being family and mental health counselors, trying to put peoples destroyed lives back together in 15 minutes while their supervisors are on the radio yelling at them wondering why they are taking so long while 10 more calls are waiting for them. Sometime in between that they have to find time to write their reports for everything they did while trying to remember if what they are writing about was from the fourth call of the day or the twenty forth. Maybe if they are lucky they can grab a bit to eat while going from one call to the next all the while wondering if they next car they pull over is going to try to kill them…


#6

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre isn’t illegal. Funny thing, which apparently not a lot of people know, is that the court case the statement comes from isn’t about shouting fire in a crowded theater. It was about encouraging people to resist the draft during WW1. IOW, the court case was about the government being allowed to prosecute war protesters.


#7

Kinda hard to do when even a presidential candidate says foolish things.


#8

That quote is from an opinion by Holmes in a long since overturned case. From Wikipedia:

Schenck v. United States Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a “clear and present danger” to the government’s recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. …] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater” has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are obvious.

The current standard is whether speech is a “true threat”:

The Supreme Court next addressed true threats, though not directly, in another case with connections to the civil rights movement. In NAACP. v. Claiborne Hardware (1982), the Court unanimously reversed a finding that Charles Evers and the NAACP could be found civilly liable for speech advocating the boycott of certain white-owned businesses. Evers, field secretary for the NAACP in Mississippi, had given impassioned speeches encouraging fellow African-Americans to participate in the boycott. He made some highly charged statements, such as “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck.”

The Court found that Evers’ comments did not constitute fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action or a true threat. It concluded that “Evers’ addresses did not exceed the bounds of protected speech.” While most of the analysis centered on whether Evers’ speech incited imminent lawless action, the case added to the Watts legacy that charged political advocacy is unlikely to rise to the level of a true threat. Unfortunately, it provided little guidance for determining whether speech constitutes a true threat.

The courts have left the definitions of true threats rather fuzzy but I doubt abhorrent FB posts rise to that level.


#9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.