Discussion: Report: Federal Officials Warned Of Violence After Texas Cartoon Contest

Discussion for article #236028

Perhaps if Gov. Abbott spent more time reading briefing papers such as this instead of worrying about a military takeover of Texas…

7 Likes

I think the Federal government should be required to notify the public of the current whereabouts and movements of Pam Geller. I don’t want to be within a 1/2 mile or so of wherever she’s located.

12 Likes

Given the amount of preparation, (see photo above), I’m going to wager that the authorities on the ground were hoping for an attack of some sort. They have all this neat gear, and this was a chance to use it. That one damned cop that kept his cool, and used his training stepped all over their party.

4 Likes

With so many Texans carrying so many loaded assault weapons into so many public venues, I’m interested to see how the vaunted Texas Militia that’s defending Texas from a US takeover will be able to tell which ones are members of the Dallas chapter of al-Shabbab Right to Carry before they manage to massacre a WalMart-full of tea partiers.

Don’t Tread On Me Don’t Read To Me

Kinda like Megan’s Law for lunatics. I’m calling my Congressman.

2 Likes

Let’s be clear, instigating a violent response was the raison d’être of the entire thing.

11 Likes

WTF? The feds warned them last week about that which AFDI already knew and had hoped for?

Hell, it was at the very top of their event planning sheet!

Unless their event actively called for violence against Muslims (or anyone else for that matter), the fact that other people are so offended by what they had to say that they resorted to violence in an attempt to stop them is really not their responsibility, other than taking whatever security measures needed to protect themselves, which they did.

Free speech is free speech. There is no rule in the US that says you are not allowed to say things that offend other people. The fault here lies with the people that are trying to silence speech with guns. If you don’t like what people are saying, there are ways to express that dislike without shooting them.

5 Likes

Local law enforcement and AFDI arranged for extensive security due to the nature of the event. In addition to law enforcement officials, the FBI, the ATF, a bomb squad and a SWAT team patrolled the event. AFDI also spent about $10,000 on additional security for the cartoon contest.

First let me be clear in saying no matter what, the gunmen should not have planned an attack on this event. They are the bad guys in this - no question.

Having said that, this whole scheme reminds me of those cartoons where someone places a treat under a propped up box and once the “mark” goes to get it they are usually snagged. And the plan did work wonderfully - Geller gets free publicity for her organization and lots of camera time to spew her hate. I bet she couldn’t be happier that her goading worked and can’t help but wonder what her next silly contest will be.

In my opinion, her actions are akin to inciting a riot.

1 Like

Oh, wait, I finally get it. This is like dangling the worm, right? Geller & Co. finally found a way they could kill Muslims and get away with it.

3 Likes

Sure, thinking adults are under no requirement to exercise discretion as regards the where and when and presence of others when speaking. Tell you what, go to a VFW WWII reunion, stand up in the middle of the Pledge of Allegiance and yell “Audie Murphy was a coward and a fraud and sucked donkey d++ks!!!” In the middle of getting pummeled let everyone know how unreasonable they’re being. Chastize them for resorting to violence. Let the rest of us know how exercising your unfettered 1st Amendment rights worked out for you.

3 Likes

Right-wingers could use your logic to claim that people performing abortions or gay marriages were “inciting riots”. After all, millions of people are strongly offended by both of those acts as well. If someone threatens to shoot up those events, do we have to stop doing them just because some nutjob is threatening to get violent?

You don’t let violent nutjobs dictate what is allowable and what isn’t in society. Geller & Co. may be crappy, horrible people. But they are allowed to get together and draw Mohammed and insult Islam all they want. The fact that unhinged people show up to shoot them doesn’t mean we can tell them to stop doing something that is completely legal.

3 Likes

Yes yes yes…

I think we all understand and agree on that.

But agreeing on that in no way diminishes what “english” posted. To a very large extent drawing out the response was part of their publicity plan. In a sense they created what in tort law is called an “Attractive Nuisance”

I wonder if they would have held this event without all the security?

3 Likes

It’s unfortunate they had all that security. None would have been dandy.

1 Like

You’re little fantasy is silly. Anyone who assaulted me in that situation (and it would be assault) could go to jail and I could sue them. They might feel good at the moment, but we aren’t talking about what feels good, we’re talking about what is legal.

I have no idea if that scenario would fall under disturbing the peace, as I could be considered an agitator for going to THEIR reunion and ruining it. That scenario is completely unrelated to anything that is happening here. Geller & Co. hosted their own event on their own time. They didn’t go to a mosque and do this. They weren’t actively bothering anyone. Everyone that showed up knew what the event was about. Anyone that didn’t want to be offended by the content of the event had every chance to avoid it.

So you are doing an apples to oranges comparison, and even still, those resorting to violence would be breaking the law and be held accountable for it.

2 Likes

Ummm… no.

Have you actually read any of the replies to you?

So the, she deserved to get raped mentality is alive and well.

(scroll)

2 Likes

I have read these threads and JamieH is spot on.

Fail.

1 Like

JamieH makes sense to me …

I confess to being lost. No one is arguing that they had the right to hold their contest… no one. I said that the whole point of the contest was to provoke a response. JamieH replies that they had a right to hold their contest. No one ever disputed that.

Please tell me WTF JamieH’s point is beyond “they had a right to hold their contest”?

3 Likes