Posted on 09/18/2016 11:39:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
Has the Black Lives Matter movement (or at least some of its prominent protesters) incited violence against police officers, leading to the tragic series of ambush attacks on law enforcement we’ve seen this year? If your answer is a flat “no” in this case I have to wonder where you’re getting your news. While some protests remain peaceful and law abiding (or at least only illegal in terms of blocking highways), others have featured calls for violence… a call which can easily be interpreted as having been answered as recently as last night. But assigning blame in the public square is very different from establishing liability in a court of law. That’s a distinction which could be put to the test in Texas, where one police sergeant has filed suit against a host of groups and individuals, claiming that their words and actions have led to the death of cops. (Dallas News)
A Dallas Police sergeant has filed suit against Black Lives Matter leaders and others, blaming the movement for race riots and violence against police officers.
Sgt. Demetrick Pennie, president of the Dallas Fallen Officer Foundation and a 17-year law enforcement veteran, filed the amended complaint in federal court Friday. Conservative news site Breitbart published the lawsuit in an article that evening.
The listed defendants include not only those associated with the Black Lives Matter movement but public figures such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, Louis Farrahkan, George Soros, the New Black Panthers Party and even President Barack Obama and presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
That’s quite the list of defendants. The focus is obviously on Black Lives Matter as an “organization” but including the President, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton and … George Soros (?) makes it a rather scattershot effort right out of the gate. Each element on the list comes with their own set of challenges for the plaintiff even if we were to assume that a court would seriously consider the complaint. (And for the record, I don’t think they will.)
Taking on BLM sounds like the most viable path at first glance, what with the video and photographic evidence available of supporters calling for violence against the police. But how does one take an organization to court which doesn’t actually exist on paper? Who would you identify as the responsible executive in charge of the “organization” who could be held accountable for the actions of the members? There are plenty of self-appointed spokespersons for Black Lives Matter but they don’t even agree with each other at times. And since the group is entirely informal, there is no chain of accountability.
As for the individuals listed in the suit, you’re immediately tromping all over the free speech issue, no matter how much you may disagree with their perceived biases and proclamations. We generally give everyone a pass for saying what they like and even in a case where police officers have wound up being assassinated, you still have to be able to assign blame to specific instances, not some general rabble rousing. In order to stick, I’m pretty sure you’d need to be able to prove the Incitement to Riot complaint, and that demands very specific persons, times, places and statements where a clear line can be drawn from point A to point B.
I obviously understand the frustration and grieving which weighs on Sergeant Pennie, but aside from a few headlines and raising awareness of the real world effects these riots have on police officers, I have a hard time seeing this case going anywhere.
I’d love to get that mother ####er in the picture in an alley and beat him to near death with my two fists.
Ex boxer fists so deciding whether near or actual would be up to me.
I assume this might get pulled, but I had to say it.
I would also sue George Soros since he is the money behind all this.
I would also sue George Soros since he is the money behind all this.
Good. Courageous man.
Huge waste of time suing Soros. There are more effective ways to punish the evil slime.
This is a worthwhile publicity stunt. The suit fails on causal link, but a good lawyer and objective judge can see to it that the question of link is given to the jury. Is the reasonably foreseeable outcome of the rhetoric, an attack? Let the jury decide. The jury is our proxy for setting the boundaries of acceptable behavior, speech included.
Sue their arses off! Actions have consequences.
I’d give a million bucks to be on that jury! 500 million? X100 maybe. Put them all in the gutter naked.
>>I’d love to get that mother ####er in the picture in an alley and beat him to near death with my two fists.<<
Looks like a chick.
see the love in that picture, huh
that’s fine too. You WANT cops dead and PRAISE their killers, you take the hits.
God give me the strength to not hate these people, as somehow they are still your creatures.
Those cads sure are packed full of hate. This isn’t asking to reform the law or the cops, this is asking to kill them. That should be a bridge too far for any civilized society. BLM doesn’t want to be civilized.
Yeah but, and you know this, when I hate i get sick to my stomach. It is a noxious emotion and perhaps very unnatural.
That doesn’t mean I dont want to defeat the enemy. But hating them just makes my BP go up and gives me an ulcer.
You dont have to hate your enemy to defeat them, right? Asking your cause you’re the biblical scholar and I only know the highlights!!
BTW, the he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword, what does that really mean? We’re allowed to save a religious country with force, no/
And forgive 70 times 7? Doesn’t mean we can’t fight back does it?
And now they’re saying the can soon create a baby without a woman’s egg. Will there still be a soul. Does this prove anything right or wrong about the bible?
If not conceived in the way God intended, what happens.
And why am i torturing you with all these questions?
Because i respect your opinion very much but these were a lot ;)
I’d think that most world faiths, let alone Christianity, would believe that if there can be a non violent solution to a general problem, it ought to be pursued.
But if you actually met one of these loons trying to kill you or a neighbor, you’d be justified to use the “sword” that Jesus counseled to take.
Also I wish the best to an attempt to sue these bastards, who do appear to be inciting to violence with the way they talk.
The problem with generalized hate is that it saps our resolve in the long run. Wasting our wrath on a general problem that we can’t really do anything about, we can find ourselves unable to address a specific problem when it pops up.
>>that’s fine too. You WANT cops dead and PRAISE their killers, you take the hits.<<
HUH? How did we get to there from praising sluts and the slut lifestyle?
I said nothing about cops, I 100% guarantee.
Are you drunk or on drugs?
Ignore last message.
I am not drunk but got my wires crossed...
Just sayn’ the pic looks like a chick. All the worse in general but let your wife beat her up.
just another freeper looking for a fight.
I MEANT HER when I said you.
She wants cops to die, she takes what comes.
Incredible number of folks here looking to insult or fight. Seems like one a day. What a shame.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.