IN: official "tweets" self out of a job

[seamusTX]

The editorial first:

<opinion>
Employees of the state of Wisconsin and its political subdivisions—including LEOs, firemen, and teachers—are protesting proposed cuts in pay and benefits by occupying the state capitol building in Madison.

Whether or not someone thinks public employees are an unnecessary evil or unions are the spawn of Satan, they have first-amendment rights of speech and assembly. Over the course of U.S. history, such actions often have involved public protests, occupying buildings, picketing, strikes, boycotts, and inconveniencing officials.

Usually the protesters go home when they get half a loaf or just run out of steam.

Suggesting that U.S. citizens be assaulted, shot, or killed for exercising their rights is beyond the pale. It is unacceptable. Boston Massacre, anyone?
</opinion>

<fact>
In Indiana today an assistant attorney general reportedly sent a "tweet" via the Twitter online service saying that unidentified parties should "use live ammunition" against the protesters.

Said person is no longer employed by the state of Indiana.
</fact>

http://www.indystar.com/article/2011022 ... 102230406/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2 ... /110229785" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[RoyGBiv]

[Ameer]

If they're protesting peacefully, that's their right.

However, certain demographics have a history of rioting when they don't get what they want. For those type of protesters, shooting is an effective and moral response. Just ask the Koreans who survived the 1992 LA riots, or ask the good people who survive looters and rioters during recent natural disasters.

[seamusTX]

However, certain demographics have a history of rioting when they don't get what they want.

Really? Certain demographics? Like the riots that took place on July 4, 1910?

Is it clear that a state prosecutor who is also an officer of the court ought to be careful about talking about using deadly force against U.S. citizens?

- Jim

[ELB]

...Is it clear that a state prosecutor who is also an officer of the court ought to be careful about talking about using deadly force against U.S. citizens?

- Jim

Why yes he should. Just like congressmen should.

“I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary,” Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Ma.) told a crowd in Boston on Tuesday [22 Feb 11] rallying in solidarity for Wisconsin union members.

Or Presidents who urge their supporters to "get in their face, punch back twice as hard." Or who count actual domestic terrorists who actually threw bombs as their friends and mentors.

Or Attorney Generals who not only fail to see the problem of militant men wielding weapons at voting polls and drop all-but-won lawsuits against them.

etc

But this Indiana deputy AG had the misfortune to work for an AG of the wrong political party for sounding off like that. Ergo, no hyperbole pass for him. Heck, he's probably a Tea Partier.

He should not have sounded off ("twitted off?") like he did, but I can't get excited about it, officer of the court or not. I know where the violent political factions are in this country. They are not in the backwoods forming militias or in the political process forming Tea Parties.

[seamusTX]

This is unfortunate.

I did not mention and do not know the political affiliation of anyone involved in this incident. I still have not even looked.

Do we balance one act of malfeasance against another, taking race or political affiliations into account, until we can decide whether one heart outweighs a feather and can be devoured by Anubis or whatever the mythology says?

- Jim

[seamusTX]

Well, the first example apparently was not enough.

In February one Carlos Lam, an assistant prosecutor in Johnson County, Indiana, sent Wisconsin Governor Scott Williams an e-mail message suggesting that Mr. Williams stage a "false flag" attack or assassination attempt on the governor to turn public opinion against the unions.

The e-mail message, obtained by AP through a public-records request, read in part:

"...the situation in WI presents a good opportunity for what's called a 'false flag' operation."

"If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the public unions,"

After initially denying that he sent the message, Mr. Lam admitted that he had and resigned today.

http://www.indystar.com/article/2011032 ... lish-email" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/so ... c-governor" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 19fa506fa1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[OldCannon]

If they're protesting peacefully, that's their right.

However, certain demographics have a history of rioting when they don't get what they want. For those type of protesters, shooting is an effective and moral response. Just ask the Koreans who survived the 1992 LA riots, or ask the good people who survive looters and rioters during recent natural disasters.

A riot is not a protest, and "peaceful" is subjective.

Just sayin.

[b322da]

Suggesting that U.S. citizens be assaulted, shot, or killed for exercising their rights is beyond the pale. It is unacceptable. Boston Massacre, anyone?- Jim

Jim,

Just tripped on this thread, and I am again distressed by the, I hope, minority here who carry deadly weapons and go on the record as perhaps favoring the use of deadly force upon persons exercising their constitutional, if not human, rights.

Your mentioning the Boston Massacre reminds me of one of its proudest moments. Sam Adams, without whom our nation possibly would not exist as other than a part of the British empire, the undisputed leader of our founding fathers, the sparkplug of our revolution, was, pardon the expression, guys, a lawyer. Notwithstanding his dedication to the freedom of his countrymen, with his life always at risk as the traitor he was, he stepped forward, in the face of the condemnation of some of his colleagues, to defend the Redcoat taken to trial for allegedly starting the Boston Massacre.

There is a lesson in legal ethics here for the lawyer who "tweeted himself out of a job."

Elmo

PS And it is a fine beer, too.

[cbr600]

deleted

[The Annoyed Man]

"Certain demographics" aside, I speak as someone who lived through the "Rodney King" riots in L.A.

Whether or not law-enforcement should fire on citizens who are violently protesting over a specific issue or set of issues is really a on-the-spot-call that can only be made by the officers on the scene. The issues get more complicated when you have armed National Guard troops serving alongside the LEOs, like we had in L.A. during the riots, where squad cars staffed with 1 LEO and 3-4 soldiers were patrolling together.

There was an apocryphal story circulating at the time of such a squad car drawing fire from a house, and before the LEO could put the ix-nay on it, the soldiers popped out, spread out, and laid down a field of return fire. I have no idea if it's true or not, but the house occupants allegedly waved the white flag and surrendered.

The Korean shop owners in question were entirely within their rights, and they should be lauded for doing what they did. They were not gunning down innocents. They were repelling organized crowds of looters, some of whom were shooting back.

I personally think that the demonstrators in Wisconsin were very much in the wrong, and their feckless democrat representatives were cowards who do not deserve to serve. But I don't think they should have been fired upon for protesting. Those who committed acts of vandalism - and there were many - do deserve to be prosecuted for it. Vandalism is vandalism, no matter what is going on. Their criminal actions were no more protected by their free-speech rights than were the criminal actions of rioters in Los Angeles. I believe that the seriousness escalates when rioters are destroying/looting private property.

The First Amendment does not protect a mythical right to smash a shop owner's windows and steal his merchandise, nor does it protect a mythical right to vandalize property owned by the taxpayers en-bloc. When peaceful protests cross over into criminally destructive behavior, then I believe the protestors lose the protections of the First Amendment at that point, and the on-scene law enforcement presence has to make whatever call is necessary to restore order - up to and including firing their weapons if necessary to protect their own lives. Otherwise, if deadly force isn't called for, but violent response is, then I have no problem with cops using physical force and less-than-lethal means to restore order.

Prosecutor who tweeted that message is an idiot, and the people of Wisconsin are poorly served by prosecutors who are idiots. So yes, he should seek employment elsewhere. Perhaps he is qualified for mucking stalls.

[seamusTX]

Rioting, looting, arson, assaults, and shooting at people are not in the same league with a political protest or strike.

At worst the protesters in Wisconsin committed disorderly conduct, trespassing, or vandalism (criminal mischief in Texas Penal Code terms). These are minor misdemeanors that do not threaten the life of a person or permanent damage to property.

The point that I am trying to make here is that public officials, who can decide whether to enforce laws or to overlook violations of laws, must not advocate illegal acts. These people exercise the power of government at their discretion. They are not like some blogger or talking head who is merely expressing an opinion.

Furthermore, using violence to settle political controversies is exactly what we are seeing unfold now in countries like Libya and Syria. The U.S. had a stiff dose of that in the 1860s, and it has occurred later in incidents like the Pullman Strike, Bonus Army, and Kent State shootings.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

The point that I am trying to make here is that public officials, who can decide whether to enforce laws or to overlook violations of laws, must not advocate illegal acts. These people exercise the power of government at their discretion. They are not like some blogger or talking head who is merely expressing an opinion.

Furthermore, using violence to settle political controversies is exactly what we are seeing unfold now in countries like Libya and Syria. The U.S. had a stiff dose of that in the 1860s, and it has occurred later in incidents like the Pullman Strike, Bonus Army, and Kent State shootings.

- Jim

I agree, in general, with everything you've said here, Jim.

Of course - and let me make it clear that I an NOT advocating anything here - at what point does political violence become justifiable? Our founders committed political violence at Concord and Lexington. Granted, it was in response to egregious provocations by government, but you've made a fairly blanket statement about the unacceptability of political violence. Do you believe that there is never a point at which it becomes acceptable, or is there some threshold which once passed, violence becomes a legitimate recourse?

Just curious.

And again, for the moderators' sake. I am NOT agitating for anything. I much prefer our system of government which affords us with generally peaceful transitions of power. But world events are unfolding elsewhere where people are willing to escalate "boisterous" protest into violent protest in the furtherance of what they perceive to be their civil rights. I would never want that for our nation, but I'm not so head in the sand as to think it could never happen. Witness Harper's Ferry.

[seamusTX]

... you've made a fairly blanket statement about the unacceptability of political violence. Do you believe that there is never a point at which it becomes acceptable, or is there some threshold which once passed, violence becomes a legitimate recourse?

I am not a great thinker. The answer is in the Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

My objection to loose talk of violence is that we have a functioning constitutional and democratic system. It is not perfectly just (nothing is), and it does not quickly reflect the preferences of the majority, but it comes around eventually.

On a practical level, this means the federal income tax or mandatory vehicle insurance are not "absolute Despotism." IMO that kind of thinking is absurd.

We are not ruled by a foreign king or parliament that we do not elect, as the American colonies were in the 18th century.

We also have to recall the cost of revolution, which Jefferson seemed to understand in advance: Thousands of lives were lost. Thousands of families were dispossessed. There was widespread material destruction during the Revolutionary War, and the country was left with a huge debt that took decades to resolve.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

Then we're on the same page.