StrangeSox

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Dec 18, 2014 -> 03:28 PM) How the heck can this be true when he's leading the league in turnovers (again)? If you're going by QBR, it's not. If you're going by passer rating, it is. QBR 2008 - 72.06 2013 - 66.44 2007 - 58.18 2011 - 55.94 2014 - 54.99 Interestingly, he actually has more TD's and the same number of interceptions as his Pro Bowl 2008 season in Denver right now, although he does have about 20 YPG less.

this is getting pretty ridiculous

A positive policing story: Outpouring of Kindness Continues for Grandma Caught Shoplifting to Feed Family

keep reading this thread title as Eva Longoria

It's really weird that the police commissioner would perceive protests demanding less police violence and more accountability as seeking "punishment" against police.

Last episode of Colbert tonight

They're clearly in play for #1 right now. At least this clown show should leave no doubt in George McCaskey's mind about what needs to happen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 05:10 PM) When Hitler took over the Rhineland it wasn't a big deal, no need to react. All that did was embolden him to keep going. That's what the movie theaters/Sony are doing here. They just gave these guys more of a reason to hack US companies. Yeah taking territory from other governments isn't exactly that same as a movie company delaying or canceling a release, that's my point.

It's all a publicity stunt by sony!

I wouldn't exactly compare appeasing Hitler to not distributing a movie but this does seem pretty silly.

huh.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:53 PM) I'm sure this violates some kind of police protocol/procedure. If that's fireable, i'm ok with him being fired. But if you're going to argue teachers and professors should be protected from employment actions based on free speech rights, this guy should be afforded the same protections. My understanding is that any public employee has pretty broad free speech protections, e.g. viewpoint discrimination. I was mixing up my personal objection to the shirt and its message with whether or not the city council/PD can or should do something to the officer in question. Beyond asking him not to do it, I don't know that they can or should. If they wanted to be more productive and make a point about it, they could call for a review of police policy and procedure and use-of-force protocols etc. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:58 PM) It's not advocating action. It's not promising action. It's providing a "response" to the "I can't breathe" message. That's it. If you think that's a legitimate threat, literally anything can be a threat. "I can't breathe" is a message about excessive police force. This is a response to that message coming from a police officer. To me, that says "this is how I police," which, given the Garner situation, is a threat. Speaking colloquially here, not legal terminology of what constitutions a legal threat.

When I was seventeen, I drank some very good beer, I drank some very good beer I purchased with a fake ID. My name was Brian McGee, I stayed up listening to Queen When I was seventeen.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:49 PM) Am I reading this right, so you guys are saying this is ok because of free speech? I'm not even sure whether it's as intimidating as SS says...but free speech = an employer cannot limit your ability to say certain things a condition of employment? Given that it's a government position, there is usually pretty strong free speech protections for employees. If this were a private employer without a union, it wouldn't even be a question. With a union, it might be different if the employer couldn't show just cause or whatever depending on what the contract said.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:44 PM) No they're not. It's a commentary in response to other commentary. It is not a threat of actual harm. It's not a promise of future action. No reasonable person would see that shirt and think "that cop is going to kill me or hurt me." Why not? That's the exact message behind it. Obey or the police will hurt you, possibly even kill you, like they did to Eric Garner. QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:46 PM) Precisely the point. Rights of free speech shouldn't be curbed because you find it offensive or you have some take on the words that cause it to be offensive. If it's not offensive on it's face, if it's not creating imminent danger on its face, it's protected. The guy is absolutely free to say that on his own. The question is if the city or the PD could prevent him from saying that while employed by them or if those actions would run afoul of first amendment protections. You as a private citizen are absolutely free to say that, print those shirts, etc.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:32 PM) When I was 16 no one outside researchers at a few universities had even heard the term "internet" before. There certainly wasn't a World Wide Web. somewhat related, the most popular internet sites by year since 1996 (soxtalk does not make the list)

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) It doesn't even rise to the level of saying that this WILL happen to you if you don't X, which is still a huge level below if you do X I will do Y to you. This is a level below that saying that if you DON'T X, nothing bad will happen to you. It's saying that if you don't obey the law, the police might choke you to death. That's what actually happened. My comments are really more about his s***ty policing mindset. Given that it's a public job, I think it'd be very difficult for the officer to be fired, reprimanded or stopped from selling the shirts. edit: QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:32 PM) If this is the case, then there is evidence that he isn't performing at his job, and you have actual causation to fire him. I think that's more or less what I'm trying to get at, but that still seems like somewhat of an end-around on the free speech issue. It is still different from the teaching example though because his speech is directly about how he will perform his job.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) The fact that you have to provide context to the speech you find offensive/wrong is a good argument for why it should be protected. Absent context, the shirt makes no sense. The shirt was created with this specific context in mind. The creator of the shirt freely admits it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:28 PM) The problem here is that you're seriously arguing that this shirt is an actual threat. That's laughable. The words on that shirt are easily perceived as a threat. Obey or be killed. That's what happened to Garner, and that's what this shirt is about.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:22 PM) That is an incredibly low standard for the first amendment. If taking words from other instances to turn them into perceived threats, you have basically opened up the legitimacy of turning anything into a reason to take away freedom's of speech. I don't know if he has first amendment protections or not. As a non-lawyer, I presented one argument that seems possibly could be made. His shirt makes a comment on police policy and procedure and how he will conduct his job. If that's not in line with department or legal standards, that could be an issue. I have a bigger issue with "breath easy-obey the law" and the message conveyed by it actually being his policing mentality than his dumb shirt.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:18 PM) So if a teacher tells students that billions of people will die if climate change isn't addressed, are they threatening students? Because that is very similar to what is being said on the T-shirt. There is no claim that this officer will do it. None at all. In one, you have a teacher telling students what he believes (and the science may back up to some extent but maybe not billions) will be the global consequences of climate change. He is not threatening anyone. He is not trying to justify or excuse harm that will come to anyone. He's not saying it's okay to kill the CEO of Exxon to stop this. Whether or not his comments belong in the classroom is a different discussion, especially since we were focused on off-the-job comments. In the other, you have a police officer telling people that their concerns over police brutality up to and including killing a man who presented no threat and just had some cigarettes are merit-less and that if they don't want to be killed or otherwise brutalized by the police, they just need to 'obey the law.' One of these situations is about impersonal and natural forces. Another is about conscious human behavior by authority figures.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:16 PM) Besides, this isn't even an actual threat. It is a stretch to say that it is. I guess I think more of freedom of speech. There is a big difference to saying "I am going to kill you if you X" and what this shirt has on it. Eric Garner was murdered by a police officer. "I can't breath" were his last words. In response, people across the country have been using "I can't breath" as a motto against police brutality. When another police officer responds with "Breath Easy, Obey the Law" in this context, it's clearly an implied threat or at least approval of the excessive force that caused Garner's death.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:14 PM) Not if they don't actually use deadly force. It's an implied threat. If teachers are implicitly or explicitly threatening children, they should face consequences as well. Outside political activism doesn't do that. edit: this conversation isn't going to go anywhere else if you can't see why police-community relations would be seriously harmed by officers issuing the implied threat that this shirt does

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2014 -> 03:09 PM) But a teachers personal belief doesn't affect how they are received in the classroom? That is crap. If the teacher can be shown to treat students unfairly based on their race, religion, creed, beliefs, whatever, then they're fair game for discipline. It's different when a police officer can be seen as justifying deadly force against anyone who dares disobey.

More so the police, the 49ers couldn't exactly lock him up.