Um… movies are not real. Please list the number of people Quentin Tarantino has actually murdered.
4 Likes
The PBA has shown itself to be petty, immature, childish, stupid, and vengeful.
Just the characteristics the police need to show to regain public trust./snark
6 Likes
And that’s just the problem: “the Killer Cop Apologist union.” Police unions have come across as such a bunch of thugs with regard to police brutality. They’re harming cops – most of whom are perfectly fine, even civically generous, people. But they see militantly defending every single cop no matter how bad as their job.
9 Likes
Sounds like no one, including the other police officers, have anything good to say about that creepy cop in Illinois.
Terrible that he was promoted after all the crap he did.
Bad news.
Really? REALLY? No fucking shit? Are you sure?
Slightly off topic but Dave Chappelle’s Killin’ Them Softly was on Comedy Central last night. It’s surprising how well those jokes hold up 15 years later.
Our offices make a living trying to stop violence, but surprise is not out of the question."
Doesn’t “surprise” come after “fluffy pillows” and “the comfy chair”?
1 Like
I love to see ultra rightwingers embrace collective bargaining and boycotts like this.
1 Like
Apparently he thinks Tarantino directed Last Tango in Paris. I believe that was some other Italian.
2 Likes
Now now now, a surprise can be a good thing too…
“The secret to humor is surprise.”
― Aristotle
…I’m sure they were just joking…
I can understand individual cops saying this but the union… un. fucking. believable…
They’re threatening to boycott a movie. Nothing illegal about that. It’s a childish overreaction to Tarantino’s valid observation that someone who commits murder is a murderer, even if they happen to be wearing a uniform and a badge.
It never occurred to me that such tough guys could get their feelings hurt so easily. Seems to be an epidemic.
1 Like
I don’t think the boycott is the issue here; it’s whatever “else” the police plan to do… It’s hard to believe police are actually saying this in this country, but I can understand it this way:
This is another case of a promising development across the US: Groups used to getting away with violating the rights of others are getting pushed closer and closer to the wall. They respond in a way that only demonstrates how wrong they are from the start.
What happens when they actually hit the wall is what worries me.
2 Likes
I for one have always find that a public official who responds to allegations by making threats against their accuser to be very credible and worthy of trust.
4 Likes
If you stopped with Reservoir Dogs, then you never really started.
3 Likes
If they use any sort of official law enforcement tactic to suppress his speech then I’d agree, but boycotting him in their private time is totally valid, however misguided their wagon defense is.*
The fact that they also have authority does make it a little murky though. I’m sure that given the opportunity, many of them would abuse their power to retaliate against him. It’s just not going to happen out in the open and it will be explained away with statements like “he was going for my gun”.
*I’m not a lawyer, I’m an art school drop out, but that’s my impression.
2 Likes
Hold on there. They are most definitely under the color of law, and their members are out and out agents of the State. They are advocating for seeing economic retribution against someone for freely expressing themselves under the First Amendment.
This is not private citizens vs. a private citizen. This is representatives of the State looking to suppress a citizen’s First Amendment rights.
Or at least a decent argument could me made along those lines.
3 Likes
This is just more “Respect Ma’ Authorataa!” bullshit from the police.
Yes, they SAY they will boycott it.
Duffman says a LOTTA things!
But are police officers ever really “off the clock”? They may not be on active duty, but they still carry a badge and a gun, and are empowered with police powers at all times.
A boycott is somewhat difficult to pursue legally, because a cop is under no obligation to go see the movie. So its hard to say that just because he didn’t buy a ticket he is boycotting a movie. But the police union publicly calling for one, IS an issue. Because clearly from this statement they are advocating for agents of the government to inflict economic pain upon someone for practicing his First Amendment rights. Add to it an unspecified “threat” of other surprises, and it changes the entire complexion of the situation.
3 Likes