LogFAQs > #941808492

Lokarin posted...

Not only is this free speech violation, it's not even HER speech.

It literally is her speech because it's something SHE posted on her Facebook page. She didn't post it with a message decrying the idiocy and questionable nature of the protest, she posted *just* the image which a de facto endorsement of said image. The fact that you choose to quote somebody else doesn't magically make you immune to any consequence.

As for the speech side of things, it was both an incitement to violence and something that clearly conflicts with her job.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Yeah, if a cop is trying to murder you, you're not allowed to fight back. But if a protestor is in the street

...except a cop is carrying out their duty, a protestor hasn't been charged by the state to maintain order let alone given permission to explicitly violate the law either by moving into areas explicitly banned to pedestrians or by unlawfully detaining people (which is considered a form of kidnapping depending on the jurisdiction)

streamofthesky posted...

Apparently "don't shoot at people first if you don't want them to shoot back at you" is a controversial stance now.

Now? lolwut? It's NEVER been appropriate to shoot at cops. Attacking members of law enforcement has been banned by every government that every existed and likely every government that ever will exist. The only gray area is when law enforcement fails to identify themselves, but the sign explicitly endorses violence against cops so that goes out the window.

streamofthesky posted...

I can understand cops firing her for saying it's ok to shoot police, they'll always protect and serve their own above all else. But the people in this topic slamming her is rather pathetic.

What's pathetic is an inability to understand why advocating shooting a person's own coworkers is bad.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.