Another arrest for banned speech in the USA. This time it is of a police officer in her own house for criticizing someone's support of BLM. Even when the Republicans controlled the Senate and Presidency the "Republican" Supreme Court did nothing when these things happened. Remember this when the military calls for money to defend your so-called freedom.
Quotepolice officer will face criminal charges in connection with an off-duty episode in which she is accused of berating a Black teenager, a friend of her son, over his support of the Black Lives Matter movement, a court official ruled
https://gab.com/brannon1776/posts/106078184199891368
(https://media.gab.com/system/preview_cards/images/011/206/011/original/5f56e1dec790d044.jpeg)
"We're approaching South Africa levels of racialized anti-white anarcho-tyranny"
Quote from: unver on April 16, 2021, 10:01:45 PM
Another arrest for banned speech in the USA. This time it is of a police officer in her own house for criticizing someone's support of BLM. Even when the Republicans controlled the Senate and Presidency the "Republican" Supreme Court did nothing when these things happened. Remember this when the military calls for money to defend your so-called freedom.
(https://media.gab.com/system/preview_cards/images/011/206/011/original/5f56e1dec790d044.jpeg)
There's always more to a story than just a CCP headline. It is not what the NY Slimes claims it is.
Officer Lio is accused of confronting the Black teenager, who is 14, about his stance on the Black Lives Matter movement, Alfred A. Gray Jr., a lawyer representing the teenager and his family, said in an interview. She is also facing allegations that she hit her husband when he tried to intervene in the situation, Mr. Gray said.
Officer Lio will faces charges of assault to intimidate and assault and battery on a household member, according to court records. She is set to be arraigned in late May.
Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2021, 04:25:03 AM
There's always more to a story than just a CCP headline.
She is also facing allegations that she hit her husband when he tried to intervene in the situation, Mr. Gray said.
A local news source says she was
arrested for a hate crime because she YELLED at the kid about his support of BLM. The court ruled disagreeing with someone can be a "threat to assault". That is that whole "speech is violence" thing they teach at the Ivy League schools. Nothing she can can be construed as a threat by a normal person, but I guess a court is not normal now. Attach the "hate crime" enhancements courtesy of the ADL and we see a very serious charge for loudly disagreeing with someone.
The husband said he was NOT hit. "Lio's husband, who testified at the hearing that he was not hit by his wife." If he lied it is perjury and I doubt he lied.
Quotemagistrate ruled Thursday that a white Milton police officer will be criminally charged for allegedly threatening a Black teenager — a friend of her son — over his support for the Black Lives Matter movement while off-duty in September.
Patricia Lio, 52, is facing charges of assault to intimidate the 14-year-old boy
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/04/16/milton-police-officer-to-be-criminally-charged-over-alleged-threats-to-black-teen-over-black-lives-matter (https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/04/16/milton-police-officer-to-be-criminally-charged-over-alleged-threats-to-black-teen-over-black-lives-matter)
Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2021, 04:25:03 AM
There's always more to a story than just a CCP headline. It is not what the NY Slimes claims it is.
Officer Lio is accused of confronting the Black teenager, who is 14, about his stance on the Black Lives Matter movement, Alfred A. Gray Jr., a lawyer representing the teenager and his family, said in an interview. She is also facing allegations that she hit her husband when he tried to intervene in the situation, Mr. Gray said.
Officer Lio will faces charges of assault to intimidate and assault and battery on a household member, according to court records. She is set to be arraigned in late May.
Whew! I thought we were England or Canada when I saw the fake headline.
Quote from: BayouCountry on April 17, 2021, 07:46:59 AM
Whew! I thought we were England or Canada when I saw the fake headline.
She is charged with a speech crime. See the post above yours.
Quotemagistrate ruled Thursday that a white Milton police officer will be criminally charged for allegedly threatening a Black teenager — a friend of her son — over his support for the Black Lives Matter movement while off-duty in September.
Patricia Lio, 52, is facing charges of assault to intimidate the 14-year-old boy
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/04/16/milton-police-officer-to-be-criminally-charged-over-alleged-threats-to-black-teen-over-black-lives-matter
Quote from: unver on April 17, 2021, 07:49:43 AM
She is charged with a speech crime. See the post above yours.
Bull Shit! There is no such crime, like me arresting you for stupid in public, it's a bogus charge, no matter what you said.
Quote from: unver on April 17, 2021, 07:49:43 AM
She is charged with a speech crime. See the post above yours.
Speech crime or intimidating a minor? I guess they could be looked at as the same thing.
The charge is overblown. She should just have a retaining order against her.
Quote
Patricia Lio, 52, is facing charges of assault to intimidate the 14-year-old boy and assault and battery on her husband ...
"A white Massachusetts police officer who authorities say assaulted her husband and threatened her son's Black friend in a heated dispute over the Black Lives Matter movement is now facing criminal charges."
Sounds like she's being arrested for assaulting and threatening people. I don't see an issue with that.
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/mass-officer-faces-criminal-charges-in-racist-rant-home-dispute/2357517/
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 17, 2021, 09:43:55 AM
"A white Massachusetts police officer who authorities say assaulted her husband and threatened her son's Black friend in a heated dispute over the Black Lives Matter movement is now facing criminal charges. "
Sounds like she's being arrested for assaulting and threatening people. I don't see an issue with that.
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/mass-officer-faces-criminal-charges-in-racist-rant-home-dispute/2357517/
It wasn't assaulting or threatening: it was an overdue moment of "scared straight" to save the young man from a life of crime and evil ways.
But to be fair, it was a LONG overdue opportunity to get back at a group that has long been assaulting, intimidating, and threatening from a racist and Marxist organization.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on April 17, 2021, 09:52:26 AM
It wasn't assaulting or threatening: it was an overdue moment of "scared straight" to save the young man from a life of crime and evil ways.
But to be fair, it was a LONG overdue opportunity to get back at a group that has long been assaulting, intimidating, and threatening from a racist and Marxist organization.
So, you believe that the article is lying, and that she didn't assault or threaten anyone?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 17, 2021, 10:02:22 AM
So, you believe that the article is lying, and that she didn't assault or threaten anyone?
Yes. Newspapers completely fabricate shit all the time. Also, the husband said she didn't hit him so assault is a stretch. If this policewoman was seriously racist, do you believe she would have allowed her son to invite his black friend into her home? This whole thing is BS. Imagine a snotty teenager questioning you in your home....
Quote from: RedGirlinBlueMd on April 17, 2021, 10:08:24 AM
Yes. Newspapers completely fabricate shit all the time. Also, the husband said she didn't hit him so assault is a stretch. If this policewoman was seriously racist, do you believe she would have allowed her son to invite his black friend into her home? This whole thing is BS. Imagine a snotty teenager questioning you in your home....
I have no reason to believe that she's racist. If she didn't assault her husband and didn't threaten anyone, I would assume the charges would be dropped.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 17, 2021, 10:02:22 AM
So, you believe that the article is lying, and that she didn't assault or threaten anyone?
Main stream media lying? Why no. THAT never happens.
:rolleyes:
Since the issue that a White person dared do ANYTHING towards a black person, media pushes their racist, Marxist agenda. I don't trust the media.
I don't care where the kid got brainwashed on leftism (especially BLM), the kid needs to know the truth. Even if it is not gentle. These naive kids NEED a dose of reality. Words are not violence, except in the mind of lefties.
If I were that White child's parent, I would stop the White child from being friends with someone who thinks that they are evil just because of the color of their skin.
#hate-has-no-home-at-this-house
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on April 17, 2021, 10:18:48 AM
Main stream media lying? Why no. THAT never happens.
:rolleyes:
Since the issue that a White person dared do ANYTHING towards a black person, media pushes their racist, Marxist agenda. I don't trust the media.
I don't care where the kid got brainwashed on leftism (especially BLM), the kid needs to know the truth. Even if it is not gentle. These naive kids NEED a dose of reality. Words are not violence, except in the mind of lefties.
If I were that White child's parent, I would stop the White child from being friends with someone who thinks that they are evil just because of the color of their skin.
#hate-has-no-home-at-this-house
I don't care about left or right, black or white, I care about the facts. The article I read said that she assaulted her husband and threatened a kid. If a police officer is being arrested, that leads me to believe that there's something to the story. It takes a lot for police to arrest one of their own.
"Officers say Lio punched her husband in the face as he tried to intervene. The husband, however, testified in court this week that his wife didn't strike him and that the blood on his nose was from a work-related injury, the Globe reported."
Uh... Yah. Unfortunately for the husband, who's likely trying to protect his wife, I suspect the kids saw her punch him.
I know that's not nearly as exciting as turning this into a left versus right versus mainstream media thing..
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 17, 2021, 10:02:22 AM
So, you believe that the article is lying, and that she didn't assault or threaten anyone?
Believe it or not, there are those, and this includes the media among others, who only need a little information, such as a youtube, to form an opinion and start blasting others whether they are right or wrong.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 17, 2021, 10:39:44 AM
"Officers say Lio punched her husband in the face as he tried to intervene. The husband, however, testified in court this week that his wife didn't strike him and that the blood on his nose was from a work-related injury, the Globe reported."
Uh... Yah. Unfortunately for the husband, who's likely trying to protect his wife, I suspect the kids saw her punch him.
I know that's not nearly as exciting as turning this into a left versus right versus mainstream media thing..
It's a NY Slimes article, you need to wait for the real facts to come out before you hang her.
Quote from: Solar on April 17, 2021, 01:58:17 PM
It's a NY Slimes article, you need to wait for the real facts to come out before you hang her.
I'm not looking to hang her. I'm looking to hang the assertion that she was arrested for no reason.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 18, 2021, 09:04:11 AM
I'm not looking to hang her. I'm looking to hang the assertion that she was arrested for no reason.
Never trust anything from the NY Slimes, Ever!
Truth is, it had absolutely nothing to do with speech!
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 18, 2021, 09:04:11 AM
I'm not looking to hang her. I'm looking to hang the assertion that she was arrested for no reason.
She was arrested for a political reason, not a legitimate one.
Quote from: T Hunt on April 18, 2021, 01:01:09 PM
She was arrested for a political reason, not a legitimate one.
Based on what?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 18, 2021, 07:56:48 PM
Based on what?
So a simple argument between two people broke out, cops called.
Yet the Slimes saw a political component to bash the Right over. In other words this would never have seen the light of day.
Yes, the Slimes made it political.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 18, 2021, 09:04:11 AM
I'm not looking to hang her. I'm looking to hang the assertion that she was arrested for no reason.
Yes, you are.
for T Hunt and Solar
Why do you assume this is political and that there wasn't an assault and/or threats?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 07:19:36 AM
for T Hunt and Solar
Why do you assume this is political and that there wasn't an assault and/or threats?
Because these arrests take place all over the country hundreds of times a day, not a one is news worthy, unless the Marxist media can exploit a racial component.
What are you, a teenager? This shit is beyond blatantly obvious!
Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2021, 08:11:18 AM
Because these arrests take place all over the country hundreds of times a day, not a one is news worthy, unless the Marxist media can exploit a racial component.
What are you, a teenager? This shit is beyond blatantly obvious!
The media's desire to politicize/exploit the situation is independent of what actually happened. The media ignores black on black murder on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean the murders didn't happen. So, while it may be absolutely true that the media is making this into a bigger deal than they normally would, because of the race/BLM factor, what makes you believe that the assault on the husband and the threats to the kid didn't happen?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 08:19:34 AM
The media's desire to politicize/exploit the situation is independent of what actually happened. The media ignores black on black murder on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean the murders didn't happen. So, while it may be absolutely true that the media is making this into a bigger deal than they normally would, because of the race/BLM factor, what makes you believe that the assault on the husband and the threats to the kid didn't happen?
Nice dodge. I don't give a fuck.
How is it you missed my very first post chastising this bull shit?
Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2021, 08:29:27 AM
Nice dodge. I don't give a fuck.
How is it you missed my very first post chastising this bull shit?
I'm not dodging anything. The assertion, based on the title, is that this woman was arrested due to an imaginary speech crime and not for assaulting/threatening someone. I'm simply asking what that belief is based on. The fact that the media has an agenda does not show that the assault/threats didn't happen.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 08:41:26 AM
I'm not dodging anything. The assertion, based on the title, is that this woman was arrested due to an imaginary speech crime and not for assaulting/threatening someone. I'm simply asking what that belief is based on. The fact that the media has an agenda does not show that the assault/threats didn't happen.
What part of "I don't give a fuck.", did you not get?
The headline is a lie, therefore everything to follow is suspect! How do you not get that? Oh, that's right, young and gullible.
Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2021, 09:06:22 AM
What part of "I don't give a fuck.", did you not get?
The headline is a lie, therefore everything to follow is suspect! How do you not get that? Oh, that's right, young and gullible.
How do you know if the headline is a lie if you don't know if she assaulted/threatened someone?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 08:19:34 AM
The media's desire to politicize/exploit the situation is independent of what actually happened. The media ignores black on black murder on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean the murders didn't happen. So, while it may be absolutely true that the media is making this into a bigger deal than they normally would, because of the race/BLM factor, what makes you believe that the assault on the husband and the threats to the kid didn't happen?
So, you agree they are pushing an agenda?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 08:41:26 AM
I'm not dodging anything. The assertion, based on the title, is that this woman was arrested due to an imaginary speech crime and not for assaulting/threatening someone. I'm simply asking what that belief is based on. The fact that the media has an agenda does not show that the assault/threats didn't happen.
So, you agree they are pushing an agenda?
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on April 19, 2021, 09:44:18 AM
So, you agree they are pushing an agenda?
Of course. All media outlets push an agenda. Some worse than others. Nobody watching CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc should believe they're getting objective news.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 10:03:24 AM
Of course. All media outlets push an agenda. Some worse than others. Nobody watching CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc should believe they're getting objective news.
Don't try to lump Fox in with the rest. Even in opinion shows like Hannity, you have more actual factual information. Don't know how many times I caught CNN twisting or omitting facts to support their lies.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on April 19, 2021, 10:34:54 AM
Don't try to lump Fox in with the rest. Even in opinion shows like Hannity, you have more actual factual information. Don't know how many times I caught CNN twisting or omitting facts to support their lies.
Fox does the same thing. They give little attention to things their right leaning audience doesn't want to hear. They give more attention to things their right leaning audience does want to hear and, even when presenting facts, do it with a slant and bias. CNN and MSNBC do the same thing. When there's a mass shooting, you'll see wall to wall coverage on CNN/MSNBC and minimal on Fox. Fox will focus on something else.
Anyone who's watching one cable news channel, expecting the entire truth, is fooling themselves.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 10:52:42 AM
Fox does the same thing. They give little attention to things their right leaning audience doesn't want to hear. They give more attention to things their right leaning audience does want to hear and, even when presenting facts, do it with a slant and bias. CNN and MSNBC do the same thing. When there's a mass shooting, you'll see wall to wall coverage on CNN/MSNBC and minimal on Fox. Fox will focus on something else.
Anyone who's watching one cable news channel, expecting the entire truth, is fooling themselves.
Please show me/us when Fox edited a video to change the context of a video.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on April 19, 2021, 11:16:27 AM
Please show me/us when Fox edited a video to change the context of a video.
I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I assume it was a video of an interview where they edited in a pause to imply that the people being asked the question couldn't quickly answer.
Whatever it is you're referring to, dishonest video editing isn't the only way to be bias and not present the entire truth.
There are others:
You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyershttps://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 09:23:43 AM
How do you know if the headline is a lie if you don't know if she assaulted/threatened someone?
You do realize we have a First Amendment, Right? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2021, 11:51:57 AM
You do realize we have a First Amendment, Right? :rolleyes:
Of course. I'm a big fan. How does that apply in this situation? I'm not saying you can SAY something...
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 12:28:56 PM
Of course. I'm a big fan. How does that apply in this situation? I'm not saying you can SAY something...
Wow, it's like reasoning with a hamster....
Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2021, 12:40:07 PM
Wow, it's like reasoning with a hamster....
Are you saying that threatening people is ok under the First Amendment?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 12:42:41 PM
Are you saying that threatening people is ok under the First Amendment?
No, I'm saying you are one dumb SOB!
Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2021, 12:49:14 PM
No, I'm saying you are one dumb SOB!
I'll take your last two vague posts to mean that you have no proof to support your beliefs.
p1tchblack
QuoteFox does the same thing. They give little attention to things their right leaning audience doesn't want to hear.
Right Leaning? Are you aware they lost 40% of their viewers when they backstabbed Trump? I watch NO FOX News. They are RINOs, nothing more.
QuoteThey give more attention to things their right leaning audience does want to hear and, even when presenting facts, do it with a slant and bias. CNN and MSNBC do the same thing.
Successful Business Practices mandate catering to your Customers. That isn't what is happening here. But this ain't FOX. This is the NY Times. At least Fox News shows VIDEO that is supporting of their stories, not edited lies.
But, innocent until proven guilty demands that we consider witness testimony in any criminal case. The Husband swears she didn't hit anyone.
If that kid was on my property.... That kid would never again be on my property.
QuoteWhen there's a mass shooting, you'll see wall to wall coverage on CNN/MSNBC and minimal on Fox. Fox will focus on something else.
Bold Faced Lie. They just don't spin it into fantasy like the liberal channels do. They are blatantly dishonest, like their viewership.
QuoteAnyone who's watching one cable news channel, expecting the entire truth, is fooling themselves.
Anyone who gets ANY news from TV, is a complete and total JOKE.
There is no such thing as a Speech Crime. We grew up under the mantra, "Sicks and Stones can break my bones, but WORDS can NEVER Hurt me." To be a crime of Assault, physical contact should be required. The Left has screwed this nation, aided and abetted by people like YOU.
Putz.
Quote from: tiny1 on April 19, 2021, 01:36:52 PM
p1tchblack
Right Leaning? Are you aware they lost 40% of their viewers when they backstabbed Trump? I watch NO FOX News. They are RINOs, nothing more.
Yes, Fox is right leaning.
Fox News dominates weekly ratings to overtake CNN among 2021 total day viewershttps://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-dominates-weekly-ratings-cnn-2021
Quote
Successful Business Practices mandate catering to your Customers. That isn't what is happening here. But this ain't FOX. This is the NY Times. At least Fox News shows VIDEO that is supporting of their stories, not edited lies.
Editing videos isn't the only way to be dishonest. Fox 100% caters it's broadcast to it's customers. All channels do it, but it's a problem when stations claim to be news and do it.
Quote
But, innocent until proven guilty demands that we consider witness testimony in any criminal case. The Husband swears she didn't hit anyone.
If that kid was on my property.... That kid would never again be on my property.
I agree but, as I keep asking, what is the basis for believing that this whole charade is just a politically driven stunt. LOTS of spouses lie for their spouse.
Quote
Bold Faced Lie. They just don't spin it into fantasy like the liberal channels do. They are blatantly dishonest, like their viewership.
No, it's not. I actually watch both stations and they both do it. They will give minimal coverage to an event that doesn't fit their agenda and will give extra attention to something that fits their agenda. Or, if they cover an event that doesn't fit their agenda, they'll find an angle to focus on that does.
Quote
Anyone who gets ANY news from TV, is a complete and total JOKE.
There is no such thing as a Speech Crime. We grew up under the mantra, "Sicks and Stones can break my bones, but WORDS can NEVER Hurt me." To be a crime of Assault, physical contact should be required. The Left has screwed this nation, aided and abetted by people like YOU.
Putz.
Well, as of now, threats, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc ARE illegal.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 01:58:54 PM
Yes, Fox is right leaning.
Fox News dominates weekly ratings to overtake CNN among 2021 total day viewers
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-dominates-weekly-ratings-cnn-2021
Editing videos isn't the only way to be dishonest. Fox 100% caters it's broadcast to it's customers. All channels do it, but it's a problem when stations claim to be news and do it.
I agree but, as I keep asking, what is the basis for believing that this whole charade is just a politically driven stunt. LOTS of spouses lie for their spouse.
No, it's not. I actually watch both stations and they both do it. They will give minimal coverage to an event that doesn't fit their agenda and will give extra attention to something that fits their agenda. Or, if they cover an event that doesn't fit their agenda, they'll find an angle to focus on that does.
Well, as of now, threats, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc ARE illegal.
Slander is not criminal, it is a civil matter. Yelling fire in a crowded theater falls under inciting a riot and has nothing to do with the first amendment.
Threats do not fall under the first amendment either, same as pulling a gun or knife on someone has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 11:46:24 AM
I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I assume it was a video of an interview where they edited in a pause to imply that the people being asked the question couldn't quickly answer.
Whatever it is you're referring to, dishonest video editing isn't the only way to be bias and not present the entire truth.
There are others:
You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
Everybody edits for time, but it can lead to changing the context of the video.
When CNN shows a black, female BLM activist screaming to stop the rioting in black neighborhoods, it makes her look like a saint. When they don't show the very next statement where she says riot in the White neighborhood, that's outright telling lies and trying to change the narrative.
Quote from: Possum on April 19, 2021, 02:23:24 PM
Slander is not criminal, it is a civil matter.
Yelling fire in a crowded theater falls under inciting a riot and has nothing to do with the first amendment.
Threats do not fall under the first amendment either, same as pulling a gun or knife on someone has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
I didn't say slander was criminal. I said it was illegal, which it is.
If we had an absolute right to free speech, it would be unconstitutional to have a law against yelling fire in a crowded room or slandering someone. We don't have an absolute right to free speech and you're not making any sense. Are you saying that an adult should be permitted to threaten children?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 12:51:34 PM
I'll take your last two vague posts to mean that you have no proof to support your beliefs.
Your incessant stupidity is getting on my nerves. I won't play your game of moving the goal post, nor will I entertain the idea of "Wrong Speech".
As I've already pointed out, the title to the story was clickbait, there is no such charge.
Now if you keep this shit up, I will make an example out of you and why you don't play games with those far wiser than you.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 02:59:07 PM
I didn't say slander was criminal. I said it was illegal, which it is.
If we had an absolute right to free speech, it would be unconstitutional to have a law against yelling fire in a crowded room or slandering someone. We don't have an absolute right to free speech and you're not making any sense. Are you saying that an adult should be permitted to threaten children?
You can not go to jail for slander, it is a civil matter. Yelling fire is illegal because it is inciting a riot, it has nothing to do with the first amendment. What you do not understand is what the amendments mean. Freedom of speech means you will not get arrested by the government for what you say. Period. It does not mean you are not responsible for damages that might occur for what you say. It does not mean someone has to listen to you. The bill of rights is a restriction on the government. The bill of rights did not give you freedom of speech, God did.
QuoteAre you saying that an adult should be permitted to threaten children?
This has to rank as one of the dumbest questions ever asked on this forum. congratulation. That statement says more about your IQ than anyone else's.
Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2021, 03:31:14 PM
Your incessant stupidity is getting on my nerves. I won't play your game of moving the goal post, nor will I entertain the idea of "Wrong Speech".
As I've already pointed out, the title to the story was clickbait, there is no such charge.
Now if you keep this shit up, I will make an example out of you and why you don't play games with those far wiser than you.
Do you understand that wording of the NY Times article, and your opinion of the NY Times article title has nothing to do with the realities of the case? You can hate the NY Times, disagree with the wording of the title and the officer may have threatened someone and/or punched someone and should be arrested?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 04:51:09 PM
Do you understand that wording of the NY Times article, and your opinion of the NY Times article title has nothing to do with the realities of the case? You can hate the NY Times, disagree with the wording of the title and the officer may have threatened someone and/or punched someone and should be arrested?
How obtuse are you?
You can't arrest someone over Free Speech! That's why the entire article is a lie from the very start, it's pure clickbait!
How is it you can't see an agenda forming here? That's the entire point by the author, they want you to believe you can be arrested for Free Speech!
Seriously, this is how the left works, they destroy what everyone takes for granted, now they'll have people actually watching what they say, so as to no offend.
This goes to the core of Political Correctness.
Are you really this dumb?
Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2021, 05:20:32 PM
How obtuse are you?
You can't arrest someone over Free Speech! That's why the entire article is a lie from the very start, it's pure clickbait!
How is it you can't see an agenda forming here? That's the entire point by the author, they want you to believe you can be arrested for Free Speech!
Seriously, this is how the left works, they destroy what everyone takes for granted, now they'll have people actually watching what they say, so as to no offend.
This goes to the core of Political Correctness.
Are you really this dumb?
Do you believe she should be arrested if she threatened the kid?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 01:58:54 PM
Yes, Fox is right leaning.
Fox News dominates weekly ratings to overtake CNN among 2021 total day viewers
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-dominates-weekly-ratings-cnn-2021
Editing videos isn't the only way to be dishonest. Fox 100% caters it's broadcast to it's customers. All channels do it, but it's a problem when stations claim to be news and do it.
I agree but, as I keep asking, what is the basis for believing that this whole charade is just a politically driven stunt. LOTS of spouses lie for their spouse.
No, it's not. I actually watch both stations and they both do it. They will give minimal coverage to an event that doesn't fit their agenda and will give extra attention to something that fits their agenda. Or, if they cover an event that doesn't fit their agenda, they'll find an angle to focus on that does.
Well, as of now, threats, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc ARE illegal.
Oh look...an angry snowflake....
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 01:28:21 AM
Do you believe she should be arrested if she threatened the kid?
That is a question for the police who are investigating the case, not a question for someone who believes everything the lsm tells them.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 01:28:21 AM
Do you believe she should be arrested if she threatened the kid?
Define threaten. In my day, if us kids talked back to adults, out dads made sure it was the very last time we pulled that shit.
You seem to be one on going question, have you not developed a life set of rules on your ownyet?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 08:19:34 AM
The media's desire to politicize/exploit the situation is independent of what actually happened. The media ignores black on black murder on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean the murders didn't happen. So, while it may be absolutely true that the media is making this into a bigger deal than they normally would, because of the race/BLM factor, what makes you believe that the assault on the husband and the threats to the kid didn't happen?
Simply logic of course my good watson. Looking at histroy, whenever the fake news media says anything, there is a 99.97% chance that the exact opposite is the truth. Russiagate, obamagate, electiongate, etc. etc. So yes, I am 99.97% sure that this is entirely political. See, its called history, thinking and deductive reasoning.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 10:52:42 AM
Fox does the same thing. They give little attention to things their right leaning audience doesn't want to hear. They give more attention to things their right leaning audience does want to hear and, even when presenting facts, do it with a slant and bias. CNN and MSNBC do the same thing. When there's a mass shooting, you'll see wall to wall coverage on CNN/MSNBC and minimal on Fox. Fox will focus on something else.
Anyone who's watching one cable news channel, expecting the entire truth, is fooling themselves.
LOL foxes audience is def no right wing. Right wingers dont peddle in, nor fall for propoganda.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 11:46:24 AM
I don't know exactly what you're referring to. I assume it was a video of an interview where they edited in a pause to imply that the people being asked the question couldn't quickly answer.
Whatever it is you're referring to, dishonest video editing isn't the only way to be bias and not present the entire truth.
There are others:
You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
You are using NPR to attack fox news? wow
Quote from: T Hunt on April 20, 2021, 04:57:03 AM
You are using NPR to attack fox news? wow
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Like using Hitler as a character witness. :biggrin:
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 01:58:54 PM
Yes, Fox is right leaning.
No its not. They used to be moderate centrists, now they are left wing, but in the RINO style as opposed to the commie style of the rest of the MSM.
QuoteFox News dominates weekly ratings to overtake CNN among 2021 total day viewers
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-dominates-weekly-ratings-cnn-2021
Editing videos isn't the only way to be dishonest. Fox 100% caters it's broadcast to it's customers. All channels do it, but it's a problem when stations claim to be news and do it.
It used to cater to the truth, at least the public truth, but they have fallen far from that. Now they are owned by the left and spew left wing lies.
QuoteI agree but, as I keep asking, what is the basis for believing that this whole charade is just a politically driven stunt. LOTS of spouses lie for their spouse.
That was covered in a previous post.
QuoteNo, it's not. I actually watch both stations and they both do it. They will give minimal coverage to an event that doesn't fit their agenda and will give extra attention to something that fits their agenda. Or, if they cover an event that doesn't fit their agenda, they'll find an angle to focus on that does.
Bullshit. Fox has never been as bad as the left. But then, being more right wing, they are naturally more in tune with reality. Remember, reality has a right wing bias.
Indeed, the conservative philosophy doesnt allow for propaganda, only the truth. While the left encourages brainwashing and double speak as tools of political war. 1984 was written about the left, not the right or the center.
QuoteWell, as of now, threats, slander, yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc ARE illegal.
Not if there is an ACTUAL FIRE.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 02:59:07 PM
I didn't say slander was criminal. I said it was illegal, which it is.
If we had an absolute right to free speech, it would be unconstitutional to have a law against yelling fire in a crowded room or slandering someone. We don't have an absolute right to free speech and you're not making any sense. Are you saying that an adult should be permitted to threaten children?
You are the one not making any sense. None of those examples in any way hinders free speech, and if it does then it is indeed against the constitution as we do indeed have an absolute right to free speech. You are acting like an absolute right to speech is extreme, it is not. Just as absolute freedom does not equal anarchy, so absolute freedom of speech doesnt equal everything that comes out of your mouth.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 19, 2021, 04:51:09 PM
Do you understand that wording of the NY Times article, and your opinion of the NY Times article title has nothing to do with the realities of the case? You can hate the NY Times, disagree with the wording of the title and the officer may have threatened someone and/or punched someone and should be arrested?
Can you accept that fake news will always be fake?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 01:28:21 AM
Do you believe she should be arrested if she threatened the kid?
Absolutely not. I can threaten you here all I want. Im going to kill your entire family. And if you are under age then I just threatened a minor, oh no! Perish the thought! When will the big bad FBI come knocking on my door? Are they hiding under my bed at night?
(caveat: if she threatened anyone in her official capacity as a law enforcement officer as opposed to a civilian then it is an entirely different story, child or not.)
Quote from: Solar on April 20, 2021, 04:39:44 AM
Define threaten. In my day, if us kids talked back to adults, out dads made sure it was the very last time we pulled that shit.
You seem to be one on going question, have you not developed a life set of rules on your ownyet?
Taking this situation, the media, me, etc out of it, do you believe that there is a basis, in our legal system, for arresting someone for verbalizing a threat.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 06:23:13 AM
Taking this situation, the media, me, etc out of it, do you believe that there is a basis, in our legal system, for arresting someone for verbalizing a threat.
Your goalposts have wheels. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Possum on April 20, 2021, 06:40:16 AM
Your goalposts have wheels. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Well, there's clearly something I'm missing here. I get that the NY Times article is likely clickbait and race baiting at the same time. What I don't understand is the apparent belief that the NY Times article can somehow change reality. If the NY Times completely misrepresented the situation, it's still possible that she broke two laws by threatening the kid and punching her husband.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 06:23:13 AM
Taking this situation, the media, me, etc out of it, do you believe that there is a basis, in our legal system, for arresting someone for verbalizing a threat.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"I will set you afire after we die, and pee on you for eternity trying to put it out".
That's an actual threat! So sue me.
Quote from: Possum on April 20, 2021, 06:40:16 AM
Your goalposts have wheels. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 07:13:59 AM
Well, there's clearly something I'm missing here. I get that the NY Times article is likely clickbait and race baiting at the same time. What I don't understand is the apparent belief that the NY Times article can somehow change reality. If the NY Times completely misrepresented the situation, it's still possible that she broke two laws by threatening the kid and punching her husband.
You really don't know what leftist media is, do you?
They along with all the other CCP outlets are setting a narrative, that not all speech is free, once they accomplish this, no one will ever speak out again.
Now to you get political Correctness? :glare:
The discussion should have ended after the fact that this happened in a private residence. That woman had the right to say what ever she wanted to to anyone within hearing range. She would have been right to threaten to kill the kid if he didn't leave the house, just for being stupid. It's not a crime to tell anyone in your home any insulting thing you want. And yes, you can yell fire in a theater, that case was settled in 1964 I believe. Yelling fire in a theater does not meet the legal definition of inciting a riot.
Since when is telling some kid in your house that he's listening to bullshit a crime? This whole thing is bullshit from start to finish. If the husband said he wasn't hit, that's the end of it.
My guess is the officer stepped on someone's toes higher up and this is payback.
As to the NY Slime, we tried using some of it to line the bottom of Petey's bird cage, but he chose to back his ass up to the edge of the cage and shit on the floor instead.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 06:23:13 AM
Taking this situation, the media, me, etc out of it, do you believe that there is a basis, in our legal system, for arresting someone for verbalizing a threat.
No there never is. Thats just asinine to claim.
To say otherwise isnt very conservative. You are a conservative, right???
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 20, 2021, 07:13:59 AM
Well, there's clearly something I'm missing here. I get that the NY Times article is likely clickbait and race baiting at the same time. What I don't understand is the apparent belief that the NY Times article can somehow change reality. If the NY Times completely misrepresented the situation, it's still possible that she broke two laws by threatening the kid and punching her husband.
I notice that you never responded to my points since you had nothing to respond with. If you go back I clearly explain how we logically know that whatever the media says, the opposite is true. Thats a guarantee.
No you cannot break the law by threatening or hitting your own kid, only if you are abusing them. You sound like the nancies who try to claim that spanking and corporal punishment are in any way a bad thing. They are not.
And so what if she punched her husband? He can punch her back, no need for the gvt to get involved. But your libtarded reliance on Big Brother is noted...
I get that some people may believe that threatening/assaulting is ok in this situation, but under current laws those things are illegal.
So, as I've said multiple times.... regardless of the slant of the NY Times, IF the cop punched her husband and IF the cop threatened her son's friend, she should be arrested because she broke two laws.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 09:19:28 AM
I get that some people may believe that threatening/assaulting is ok in this situation, but under current laws those things are illegal.
No im sorry they are not illegal at all, at least not anyplace ive ever lived. Show me any constitutional law that says I cannot threaten my son to his face or spank him.
QuoteSo, as I've said multiple times.... regardless of the slant of the NY Times, IF the cop punched her husband and IF the cop threatened her son's friend, she should be arrested because she broke two laws.
But we KNOW that she did not since it is the MSM saying it. Its really that simple.
You need to accept that you have failed to make your case here.
Quote from: T Hunt on April 21, 2021, 09:27:13 AM
No im sorry they are not illegal at all, at least not anyplace ive ever lived. Show me any constitutional law that says I cannot threaten my son to his face or spank him.
But we KNOW that she did not since it is the MSM saying it. Its really that simple.
You need to accept that you have failed to make your case here.
There are plenty of laws that prohibit threatening people. Also, she was threatening someone else's son.
So, you really believe that EVERYTHING the NY Times says is a lie?
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 09:39:44 AM
There are plenty of laws that prohibit threatening people. Also, she was threatening someone else's son.
LOL no im sorry, there is no law prohibiting me from threatening another private citizen. Im gonna kill you tonight. See, no FBI at my house or anything, even if you are a kid not my own. Face to face on private property would make little difference.
QuoteSo, you really believe that EVERYTHING the NY Times says is a lie?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: you dont?!?! and you call yourself a conservative!
Quote from: T Hunt on April 21, 2021, 09:48:01 AM
LOL no im sorry, there is no law prohibiting me from threatening another private citizen. Im gonna kill you tonight. See, no FBI at my house or anything, even if you are a kid not my own. Face to face on private property would make little difference.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: you dont?!?! and you call yourself a conservative!
Just to be clear, you're denying the existence of laws prohibiting threatening because you typed a threat on a screen and the FBI didn't show up to arrest you?
(https://giphy.com/gifs/confused-will-ferrell-anchorman-uN5iwZB2v2dH2/links)
Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel. In some situations, speech can even constitute a crime, such as in the case of criminal threats. A criminal threat, sometimes known as the terrorist threat, malicious harassment, or by other terms, occurs when someone threatens to kill or physically harm someone else.
CommunicationA criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough.
Fear and Intent
Criminal threats are made with the intention to place someone in fear of injury or death. However, it isn't necessary for a victim to actually experience fear or terror. Rather, it's the intention of the person making the threat that matters. The intent of a person who makes threats is usually determined by the circumstances surrounding the case.
Specificity and Reasonableness
You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you immediately, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real. On the other hand, if you walk into a store with a gun and threaten to shoot the clerk unless she gives you a refund, such a threat is credible and specific.
AssaultThe crime of assault, in some states, is very similar to criminal threats. An assault occurs when a person either attempts to physically injure someone else, or uses threats of force accompanied by threatening actions. Words alone are usually not enough to commit an assault, and some sort of physical action is typically required. For example, threatening to punch someone is usually not an assault. However, making the threats and then approaching the person in a threatening manner does qualify as assault. So, the same conduct that is considered a criminal threat in one state may be classified as an assault in another.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm#:~:text=Penalties,a%20misdemeanor%20or%20felony%20offense.&text=Anyone%20convicted%20of%20making%20a,time%20in%20jail%20or%20prison.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 10:00:58 AM
Just to be clear, you're denying the existence of laws prohibiting threatening because you typed a threat on a screen and the FBI didn't show up to arrest you?
No, just using that as an example which your brain may be able to comprehend. If its illegal then why are they not arresting me?
QuoteEven though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel. In some situations, speech can even constitute a crime, such as in the case of criminal threats. A criminal threat, sometimes known as the terrorist threat, malicious harassment, or by other terms, occurs when someone threatens to kill or physically harm someone else.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
this is the typical leftist attempt to try to say "well if some speech is regulated then all can be". If you want to troll a conservative site try something new that all the other trolls before you havent tried yet. We have seen this argument before and it always fails.
Yes according to the constitution our freedom of speech among
private citizens(public figures operate differently, obviously) is absolute. No words can ever be illegal.
QuoteCommunication
A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough.
Fear and Intent
Criminal threats are made with the intention to place someone in fear of injury or death. However, it isn't necessary for a victim to actually experience fear or terror. Rather, it's the intention of the person making the threat that matters. The intent of a person who makes threats is usually determined by the circumstances surrounding the case.
Specificity and Reasonableness
You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you immediately, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real. On the other hand, if you walk into a store with a gun and threaten to shoot the clerk unless she gives you a refund, such a threat is credible and specific.
Assault
The crime of assault, in some states, is very similar to criminal threats. An assault occurs when a person either attempts to physically injure someone else, or uses threats of force accompanied by threatening actions. Words alone are usually not enough to commit an assault, and some sort of physical action is typically required. For example, threatening to punch someone is usually not an assault. However, making the threats and then approaching the person in a threatening manner does qualify as assault. So, the same conduct that is considered a criminal threat in one state may be classified as an assault in another.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm#:~:text=Penalties,a%20misdemeanor%20or%20felony%20offense.&text=Anyone%20convicted%20of%20making%20a,time%20in%20jail%20or%20prison.
:lol: :lol: :lol: So you quoted some loser lawyers opinion. Srry, thats not the law. I can say whatever I want. Lawyers love a litigious society and try to make us so, more money for them.
"If its illegal then why are they not arresting me?"
You can't be this uninformed, but by pretending to be, you're showing that you are incredibly dishonest, can't be reasoned with and are wasting my time.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 10:20:25 AM
"If its illegal then why are they not arresting me?"
You can't be this uninformed, but by pretending to be, you're showing that you are incredibly dishonest, can't be reasoned with and are wasting my time.
So you are finally done with your obvious leftist trolling? Thanks for the example, you can move along now...
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 10:20:25 AM
"If its illegal then why are they not arresting me?"
You can't be this uninformed, but by pretending to be, you're showing that you are incredibly dishonest, can't be reasoned with and are wasting my time.
Well god, now you know how the rest of us view your posts.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 10:00:58 AM
Just to be clear, you're denying the existence of laws prohibiting threatening because you typed a threat on a screen and the FBI didn't show up to arrest you?
(https://giphy.com/gifs/confused-will-ferrell-anchorman-uN5iwZB2v2dH2/links)
Even though the Constitution guarantees the right of free speech, that right is not an absolute one. The law has long recognized specific limitations when it comes to speech, such as prohibitions against slander and libel. In some situations, speech can even constitute a crime, such as in the case of criminal threats. A criminal threat, sometimes known as the terrorist threat, malicious harassment, or by other terms, occurs when someone threatens to kill or physically harm someone else.
Communication
A criminal threat involves one person threatening someone else with physical harm. The threat must be communicated in some way, though it doesn't necessarily have to be verbal. A person can make a threat through email, text message, or even through non-verbal body language such as gestures or movements. However, some states require written or verbal threats, and in those states gestures are not enough.
Fear and Intent
Criminal threats are made with the intention to place someone in fear of injury or death. However, it isn't necessary for a victim to actually experience fear or terror. Rather, it's the intention of the person making the threat that matters. The intent of a person who makes threats is usually determined by the circumstances surrounding the case.
Specificity and Reasonableness
You cannot commit a criminal threat if the threat is vague or unreasonable. The threat must be capable of making the people who hear it feel as if they might be hurt, and conclude that the threat is credible, real, and imminent. If, for example, you threaten to blow up the world unless your bartender doesn't bring your drink to you immediately, no reasonable person hearing it would believe the threat was real. On the other hand, if you walk into a store with a gun and threaten to shoot the clerk unless she gives you a refund, such a threat is credible and specific.
Assault
The crime of assault, in some states, is very similar to criminal threats. An assault occurs when a person either attempts to physically injure someone else, or uses threats of force accompanied by threatening actions. Words alone are usually not enough to commit an assault, and some sort of physical action is typically required. For example, threatening to punch someone is usually not an assault. However, making the threats and then approaching the person in a threatening manner does qualify as assault. So, the same conduct that is considered a criminal threat in one state may be classified as an assault in another.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Criminal-Threats.htm#:~:text=Penalties,a%20misdemeanor%20or%20felony%20offense.&text=Anyone%20convicted%20of%20making%20a,time%20in%20jail%20or%20prison.
If you are slandered by someone, you have to take it to court, you have to prove that you have suffered damages from that slander, and you have to convince a jury you are entitled to compensation. Nobody from the government will come to arrest the person who slandered you, that person will not have to answer to the government. Slander is a civil matter. Now do you get it, or did the N.Y. times tell you different? And again, our rights are from God therefor absolute. There are those who are elected who have convinced you that if you would only give up some of your liberties, you would be safer, that is another lie, but I bet you got that from the times too.
Quote from: Possum on April 21, 2021, 11:10:11 AM
If you are slandered by someone, you have to take it to court, you have to prove that you have suffered damages from that slander, and you have to convince a jury you are entitled to compensation. Nobody from the government will come to arrest the person who slandered you, that person will not have to answer to the government. Slander is a civil matter. Now do you get it, or did the N.Y. times tell you different? And again, our rights are from God therefor absolute. There are those who are elected who have convinced you that if you would only give up some of your liberties, you would be safer, that is another lie, but I bet you got that from the times too.
As you know, we aren't talking about slander. We're talking about making a threat. What I posted covers that... if you took the time to read it.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 11:24:53 AM
As you know, we aren't talking about slander. We're talking about making a threat. What I posted covers that... if you took the time to read it.
Read your posts, you're the one who keeps bring it up. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 11:24:53 AM
As you know, we aren't talking about slander. We're talking about making a threat. What I posted covers that... if you took the time to read it.
Yes, you're talking about the threat, that you have yet to post what it actually was.
So tell us, what was the threat?
Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2021, 12:37:33 PM
Yes, you're talking about the threat, that you have yet to post what it actually was.
So tell us, what was the threat?
Let's get back to what really happened here.
From Page 2:
Me: "Why do you assume this is political and that there wasn't an assault and/or threats?"
You: "Because these arrests take place all over the country hundreds of times a day, not a one is news worthy, unless the Marxist media can exploit a racial component.
What are you, a teenager? This shit is beyond blatantly obvious!"
So, as I've said multiple times, the political/racial angle of the NY Times article does not change reality. I posted a nbcboston.com link that said there was a threat. YOU are saying there was not threat or assault.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 12:53:38 PM
Let's get back to what really happened here.
From Page 2:
Me: "Why do you assume this is political and that there wasn't an assault and/or threats?"
You: "Because these arrests take place all over the country hundreds of times a day, not a one is news worthy, unless the Marxist media can exploit a racial component.
What are you, a teenager? This shit is beyond blatantly obvious!"
So, as I've said multiple times, the political/racial angle of the NY Times article does not change reality. I posted a nbcboston.com link that said there was a threat. YOU are saying there was not threat or assault.
I did? I'm sure you can produce it, just like you did proving your allegation of a threat, which you still avoided to prove.
So post it! What was the threat?
Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2021, 12:58:02 PM
I did? I'm sure you can produce it, just like you did proving your allegation of a threat, which you still avoided to prove.
So post it! What was the threat?
Copy/Paste from above:
Me: "Why do you assume this is political a
nd that there wasn't an assault and/or threats?"
You: "
Because these arrests take place all over the country hundreds of times a day, not a one is news worthy, unless the Marxist media can exploit a racial component.I haven't seen any details of a threat, but I'm not taking a decisive position for or against it.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 01:06:20 PM
Copy/Paste from above:
Me: "Why do you assume this is political and that there wasn't an assault and/or threats?"
You: "Because these arrests take place all over the country hundreds of times a day, not a one is news worthy, unless the Marxist media can exploit a racial component.
I haven't seen any details of a threat, but I'm not taking a decisive position for or against it.
Stop dodging! You claimed there was a threat, so produce it!
Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2021, 01:46:51 PM
Stop dodging! You claimed there was a threat, so produce it!
There were reports, from multiple sources, that there was a threat. Police investigated and weren't able to rule out an assault or threat. Until there is reason not to believe there was a threat, I'm going to be of the opinion there was a threat.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 02:05:18 PM
There were reports, from multiple sources, that there was a threat. Police investigated and weren't able to rule out an assault or threat. Until there is reason not to believe there was a threat, I'm going to be of the opinion there was a threat.
So the media claimed there was a threat, is that what you're going with? :rolleyes:
So it shouldn't be hard to post what this so called "Threat" actually was, Right?
See, this is the problem with the media, there is no story here, so they embellish so as to create headlines. This was all about distraction and generating BS. My money is on this being dropped due to insufficient evidence.
There never was a story in the first place, just people getting into an argument, that's all, and she probably has a mouth on her that got her in trouble, but that will be the extent of it.
Now a whole lot of people will be concerned over what they say, all because of the NY Slimes Bull Shit headline! That was the whole plan all along, it's the lefts MO, it's how they push PC. Are you learning anything yet?
Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2021, 03:26:56 PM
So the media claimed there was a threat, is that what you're going with? :rolleyes:
So it shouldn't be hard to post what this so called "Threat" actually was, Right?
See, this is the problem with the media, there is no story here, so they embellish so as to create headlines. This was all about distraction and generating BS. My money is on this being dropped due to insufficient evidence.
There never was a story in the first place, just people getting into an argument, that's all, and she probably has a mouth on her that got her in trouble, but that will be the extent of it.
Now a whole lot of people will be concerned over what they say, all because of the NY Slimes Bull Shit headline! That was the whole plan all along, it's the lefts MO, it's how they push PC. Are you learning anything yet?
I'm going with what makes sense right now. Again, the story was reported as an assault and a threat. Police did their investigation, couldn't rule out that there wasn't an assault or threats and arrested her/pressed charges.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 04:23:45 PM
I'm going with what makes sense right now. Again, the story was reported as an assault and a threat. Police did their investigation, couldn't rule out that there wasn't an assault or threats and arrested her/pressed charges.
No, again, you are reading into this what you want.
"Officer Lio will faces charges of assault to intimidate and assault and battery on a household member, according to court records. She is set to be arraigned in late May."
Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2021, 04:49:41 PM
No, again, you are reading into this what you want.
"Officer Lio will faces charges of assault to intimidate and assault and battery on a household member, according to court records. She is set to be arraigned in late May."
I have no interest in this either way. It will never impact me in any way. At this point, the charges and what is reported make me believe there's something to it:
"After consideration of the evidence put forth by the accused, I find that the witness testimony she presented does not disprove the evidence put forward by the Westwood Police," Assistant Clerk Magistrate Beth Cook ruled Thursday, following testimony given Tuesday by Lio, one of her sons, her husband, and a Westwood police sergeant, according to the newspaper.
................
What allegedly happened
On Sept. 19, 2020, Lio's son held a sleepover at their Westwood home with two friends: the 14-year-old boy and a Hispanic teenager, according to the Globe.
As the three friends watched a Celtic's game, they heard Lio in another room criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement with expletives, according to police.
Lio, in her testimony, said her other son showed her a social media post from that same day posted by the 14-year-old that mentioned the nationwide push for cutting and re-allocating money from police budgets, the Globe reports.
Lio's sons told the guests she "is scared for her life because of Black Lives Matter," authorities said.
According to the Globe, Lio then approached the sleepover guests and asked the Hispanic teenager about his opinions on the movement and if his father, who is a Boston police officer, supports efforts to reduce police department funding.
Lio's husband then stepped in in an attempt to direct her away from the boys, the newspaper reports. Lio allegedly punched him the face and he started to bleed, according to police.
Lio then got in the face of the 14-year-old boy, clenched her fists, and cursed when talking about Black Lives Matter, the Globe reports. When the guest asked if she planned to hit him, she said no, according to police.
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/04/16/milton-police-officer-to-be-criminally-charged-over-alleged-threats-to-black-teen-over-black-lives-matter
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 04:55:09 PM
I have no interest in this either way. It will never impact me in any way. At this point, the charges and what is reported make me believe there's something to it:
"After consideration of the evidence put forth by the accused, I find that the witness testimony she presented does not disprove the evidence put forward by the Westwood Police," Assistant Clerk Magistrate Beth Cook ruled Thursday, following testimony given Tuesday by Lio, one of her sons, her husband, and a Westwood police sergeant, according to the newspaper.
................
What allegedly happened
On Sept. 19, 2020, Lio's son held a sleepover at their Westwood home with two friends: the 14-year-old boy and a Hispanic teenager, according to the Globe.
As the three friends watched a Celtic's game, they heard Lio in another room criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement with expletives, according to police.
Lio, in her testimony, said her other son showed her a social media post from that same day posted by the 14-year-old that mentioned the nationwide push for cutting and re-allocating money from police budgets, the Globe reports.
Lio's sons told the guests she "is scared for her life because of Black Lives Matter," authorities said.
According to the Globe, Lio then approached the sleepover guests and asked the Hispanic teenager about his opinions on the movement and if his father, who is a Boston police officer, supports efforts to reduce police department funding.
Lio's husband then stepped in in an attempt to direct her away from the boys, the newspaper reports. Lio allegedly punched him the face and he started to bleed, according to police.
Lio then got in the face of the 14-year-old boy, clenched her fists, and cursed when talking about Black Lives Matter, the Globe reports. When the guest asked if she planned to hit him, she said no, according to police.
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2021/04/16/milton-police-officer-to-be-criminally-charged-over-alleged-threats-to-black-teen-over-black-lives-matter
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
He said, she said! So, where's the threat? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2021, 06:07:22 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
He said, she said! So, where's the threat? :lol: :lol: :lol:
There were at least 4 people there and I'm guessing the police interviewed all 4 to get their story. I wasn't there, so I don't know what exactly the threat was. The article said she was in his face yelling, with her fists clenched. I assume it's linked to that.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 08:06:14 PM
There were at least 4 people there and I'm guessing the police interviewed all 4 to get their story. I wasn't there, so I don't know what exactly the threat was. The article said she was in his face yelling, with her fists clenched. I assume it's linked to that.
Now do you get the point? Never trust a fuckin headline!!!
The Marxist media is notorious for this bull shit, they know their readership is downright stupid and gullible and will never question their articles.
We do, because we want the truth in this forum and that goes for FUX as well as other so called right wing media.
Case in point!
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/072/240/707/original/48f6dd548cca7cd5.jpg)
You've lost me. I read the NY Times headline and I don't see anything blatantly dishonest about it. What's wrong with it?
"White Police Officer to Face Charge She Intimidated Son's Black Friend
Officer Patricia Lio of the Milton Police Department in Massachusetts is accused of berating her son's 14-year-old Black friend about his stance on the Black Lives Matter movement."
Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 06:47:48 AM
Case in point!
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/072/240/707/original/48f6dd548cca7cd5.jpg)
The image says "Breaking News". When the story first broke, before body cam footage was released, all we knew was that a cop shot and killed a 15 year old.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 07:53:57 AM
You've lost me. I read the NY Times headline and I don't see anything blatantly dishonest about it. What's wrong with it?
"White Police Officer to Face Charge She Intimidated Son's Black Friend
Officer Patricia Lio of the Milton Police Department in Massachusetts is accused of berating her son's 14-year-old Black friend about his stance on the Black Lives Matter movement."
Did you read the headline of this thread?
Yet it was you that claimed she threatened him, without evidence.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 07:55:55 AM
The image says "Breaking News". When the story first broke, before body cam footage was released, all we knew was that a cop shot and killed a 15 year old.
Why are you such a gullible twit? Yet they knew it was a teen? So you don't think the narrative was already in motion?
They already had her image up, so they knew all the facts surrounding this shit, and here you are, like one of Pavlov's Dogs, barking in support of Marxist media.
You do know, you fool no one here, Right?
Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 08:23:43 AM
Did you read the headline of this thread?
Yet it was you that claimed she threatened him, without evidence.
According to the NY Times article, the evidence had been investigated/reviewed by our justice system and it was determined that there was reason to believe she had assaulted her husband and threatened the kid. NY Times is simply reporting on what has happened. If you want to argue that threatening shouldn't be illegal, for whatever reason, that's fine. But under current law, after the situation was investigated and reviewed, the courts determined that there was reason to believe she had broken the law. What is the issue?
An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court ruled on Thursday after a probable cause hearing that criminal charges against Patricia Lio, an officer with the Milton Police Department, could proceed.
Officer Lio will face charges of assault to intimidate and assault and battery on a household member, according to court records.
Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 08:34:14 AM
Why are you such a gullible twit? Yet they knew it was a teen? So you don't think the narrative was already in motion?
They already had her image up, so they knew all the facts surrounding this shit, and here you are, like one of Pavlov's Dogs, barking in support of Marxist media.
You do know, you fool no one here, Right?
You're so big on evidence, how do YOU know they had all the facts? It's one thing to find someone in the area of the shooting that knew the name and age of the girl, but the body cam footage wasn't released until later.
Their headline, that you posted, was about as objective and factual as you can get.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 09:29:16 AM
You're so big on evidence, how do YOU know they had all the facts? It's one thing to find someone in the area of the shooting that knew the name and age of the girl, but the body cam footage wasn't released until later.
Their headline, that you posted, was about as objective and factual as you can get.
only morons or liberal brainwashed minions believe ANYTHING the NY SLIME prints.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 09:27:10 AM
According to the NY Times article, the evidence had been investigated/reviewed by our justice system and it was determined that there was reason to believe she had assaulted her husband and threatened the kid. NY Times is simply reporting on what has happened. If you want to argue that threatening shouldn't be illegal, for whatever reason, that's fine. But under current law, after the situation was investigated and reviewed, the courts determined that there was reason to believe she had broken the law. What is the issue?
An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court ruled on Thursday after a probable cause hearing that criminal charges against Patricia Lio, an officer with the Milton Police Department, could proceed.
Officer Lio will face charges of assault to intimidate and assault and battery on a household member, according to court records.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh, she's in trouble now... :rolleyes:
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 09:29:16 AM
You're so big on evidence, how do YOU know they had all the facts? It's one thing to find someone in the area of the shooting that knew the name and age of the girl, but the body cam footage wasn't released until later.
Their headline, that you posted, was about as objective and factual as you can get.
Did you even look at the image? This is just sad, how you work so feverishly to run block for Marxist media. :rolleyes:
Here's what they already had.
https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1385022505367314435
Quote from: winterset on April 22, 2021, 09:53:50 AM
only morons or liberal brainwashed minions[/b[ believe ANYTHING the NY SLIME prints.
What's the difference?
:confused:
Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 11:10:08 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
"An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court" :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh, she's in trouble now... :rolleyes:
Irrelevant... the point is that law enforcement and the courts did their due diligence, determined that there was something to charge the officer with and charged her. The NY Times was simply reporting the facts of what had happened to that point. What's the issue?
Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 11:11:24 AM
Did you even look at the image? This is just sad, how you work so feverishly to run block for Marxist media. :rolleyes:
Here's what they already had.
https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1385022505367314435
Was a 16 year old killed by police?
I haven't heard the 911 call, but the video wasn't edited until the point where the girl with the knife was shot. Stopping at the point of someone being killed is perfectly normal.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 21, 2021, 02:05:18 PM
There were reports, from multiple sources, that there was a threat. Police investigated and weren't able to rule out an assault or threat. Until there is reason not to believe there was a threat, I'm going to be of the opinion there was a threat.
I hope you're never called to be a juror. You seem to not understand the very foundation of US laws. A person is by default, innocent, until proven guilty. The onus is on the state to prove a threat was made. In one place the youth is described as Hispanic and in another, he is black. If they cannot even get this fact correct....
Quote from: RedGirlinBlueMd on April 22, 2021, 01:59:47 PM
I hope you're never called to be a juror. You seem to not understand the very foundation of US laws. A person is by default, innocent, until proven guilty. The onus is on the state to prove a threat was made. In one place the youth is described as Hispanic and in another, he is black. If they cannot even get this fact correct....
Of course you're innocent until proven guilty and being found not guilty isn't the same as being innocent. I'm not a juror and my opinion means nothing. Based on what was reported I think she probably did some/all of what she's accused of...and the NY Times didn't report anything blatantly wrong.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 11:52:10 AM
Irrelevant... the point is that law enforcement and the courts did their due diligence, determined that there was something to charge the officer with and charged her. The NY Times was simply reporting the facts of what had happened to that point. What's the issue?
They did no such thing, she has yet to go before the court.
You sure are Hell bent on protecting Marxist media, even to the point, you're certain she's guilty of something.
As I've stated in the past, you can be busted for (SIP) Stupid In Public, but there's no law prohibiting that, so don't worry, you're safe.
Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 03:46:42 PM
They did no such thing, she has yet to go before the court.
You sure are Hell bent on protecting Marxist media, even to the point, you're certain she's guilty of something.
As I've stated in the past, you can be busted for (SIP) Stupid In Public, but there's no law prohibiting that, so don't worry, you're safe.
I didn't say she had gone to court. I was referring to this:
An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court ruled
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 04:50:14 PM
I didn't say she had gone to court. I was referring to this:
An assistant clerk with the Dedham District Court ruled
Ummm, yes you did!
You really aren't very good at this, are you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 11:52:10 AM
Irrelevant... the point is that law enforcement and the courts did their due diligence, determined that there was something to charge the officer with and charged her. The NY Times was simply reporting the facts of what had happened to that point. What's the issue?
Quote from: Solar on April 22, 2021, 04:58:37 PM
Ummm, yes you did!
You really aren't very good at this, are you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I was referring to what I said about. I did not believe they had gone to court and had a verdict. Obviously that would be a completely different discussion.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 05:07:22 PM
I was referring to what I said about. I did not believe they had gone to court and had a verdict. Obviously that would be a completely different discussion.
Give it up, moving the goal post will not save you.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 11:52:10 AM
Irrelevant... the point is that law enforcement and the courts did their due diligence, determined that there was something to charge the officer with and charged her. The NY Times was simply reporting the facts of what had happened to that point. What's the issue?
But can you show any actual evidence that that happened at all? Anything? Any link or source that has credibility? No you cannot, all you can do is use the MSM, (who assisted china in stealing the election). You have no sources...
Quote from: T Hunt on April 22, 2021, 08:15:51 PM
But can you show any actual evidence that that happened at all? Anything? Any link or source that has credibility? No you cannot, all you can do is use the MSM, (who assisted china in stealing the election). You have no sources...
No I can't. I wasn't there and there was no video. That is very normal when crimes are committed. However, since I wasn't there, I have to take events surrounding into consideration when forming an opinion. I provided my support for why I believe the cop committed a crime . What is your support for why you think she didn't.
Gotta admit I don't know what to make of this story, but it is the policy of the Milton Police Department according to the news stories. They have a 'zero tolerance for any bias behavior, domestic violence, or aggressive behavior towards children.' Reminds me of controls businesses have over employees: job agreements, non-disclosure, many companies use them to keep employees quiet. Businesses whether they be commercial or whatever have rules. I'm of mixed opinion on topic as I used to be in data security at a major corporation and we'd be tested each year. I had to make sure our licenses and software were legal etc. etc.
Quote from: p1tchblack on April 22, 2021, 08:18:51 PM
No I can't. I wasn't there and there was no video. That is very normal when crimes are committed. However, since I wasn't there, I have to take events surrounding into consideration when forming an opinion. I provided my support for why I believe the cop committed a crime . What is your support for why you think she didn't.
Thats the whole point, you didnt provide any credible sources for why you think he committed a crime, all you have is the MSM, which you cannot use because its not credible. It is so not credible that the opposing side can actually use the MSM as their own source for evidence that it DIDNT happen since the MSM lies sooo consistently as to be reliable.
So to recap, you have provided nothing to your point while we have supported ours with reason and logical deduction.
Quote from: midcan5 on April 23, 2021, 04:35:14 AM
Gotta admit I don't know what to make of this story, but it is the policy of the Milton Police Department according to the news stories. They have a 'zero tolerance for any bias behavior, domestic violence, or aggressive behavior towards children.' Reminds me of controls businesses have over employees: job agreements, non-disclosure, many companies use them to keep employees quiet. Businesses whether they be commercial or whatever have rules. I'm of mixed opinion on topic as I used to be in data security at a major corporation and we'd be tested each year. I had to make sure our licenses and software were legal etc. etc.
So what? Thats not a constitutional position so it is moot.