When Indiana Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Cox saw a tweet from a Mother Jones reporter that riot police had been ordered in to clear pro-public union protesters from the Wisconsin statehouse because of safety concerns, he tweeted back, "Use live ammo." His subsequent tweets made it clear he was in favor of meeting deadly force with deadly force.
When it is Teh Gummint vs. People With Signs, this isn't exactly a popular sentiment and thus young Esquire Cox was sent down and those who watch the watchers with askance all across the political spectrum started in, finding new ways to say, "OMG! OMG!"
...Like an Indiana Deputy AG commands anyone in Wisconsin.
But there's a bigger issue here and so halfwits everywhere will have a better chance to see it, I'll use bold print: Riot police
Wake up and smell the reality: every time Officer Friendly deals with you in an official capacity, there's live ammo involved; just because it doesn't go "bang," that doesn't mean it isn't in use.
Jeffrey Cox may or may not actually approve of the brute, brute boot [2] system of crowd control; what we do know about him is twofold:
1. He doesn't always weigh his words.
2. Official reaction to his tweet was swift, sweeping and harsh. Mr. Cox doesn't work here any more.
(Radley Balko has more. IMO, you should play poker for money with Jeff Cox; he seems...expressive).
So reset the panic alarm. His "ruling elite" peers saw the same thing you saw -- and they shot first.
________________________________________
1. "Apply directly to the forehead:" '68 Chicago nightstick motto, innit?
2. Apologies to George Orwell and Slyvia Plath.
6 comments:
Just because the other side is loaded with idjits doesn't mean our side should be idjits, too.
He's well gone.
If you're going to shoot yourself in the foot, use live ammo.
Jim
of course, they guy who said in support of the union that the protest should "leave everyone a bit bloody" hasn't been fired.
While I agree that the refernced statement about live ammo was, perhaps, over the top, there should only be one standard.
Yet right now, there are two. One for pro Unon/Obama/Leftist folks (but I am being redundant, and one for others.
Both statements are wrong, and both parties should be admonished.
Bobbi,
The folks we deal with may forget it, since occasions for the presentation of that gun on our hip are much less prevalent in real life than on TV, but most officers are acutely aware of its presence everywhere they go.
You get much better results with a smile and a gun on your hip than with that smile alone.
Sometimes ( well, with liberals, a LOT of times ) you just have to point out the obvious ….. And that’s why (most) police and all governments and their subordinate agencies obscure your unalienable right to own, carry, and use firearms. See, it’s a lot safer when you can threaten unarmed opponents. The commission or continuation of a crime becomes a routine event. You know, using a deadly weapon, or even the threat of using one, against people who are exercising their rights is a crime which equates to felonious assault, or worse, and which both state and federal law specifies as disqualifying one from his or her Second Amendment right. Q.E.D., said law enforcement personnel are criminals and are constrained from continuing as law enforcement. Now, if we expand that a little, law enforcement includes lawyers, parole officers, judges, congress critter lawmakers, et al. So pretty much all of them are criminally disqualified. Which means, being disqualified, we can’t allow or depend on them to administer justice in a fair and balanced impartial manner. It then becomes our responsibility to take back our delegated powers. Thus, their continuation in office is a crime, and their activities are not protected by law, and the self-defense rule comes into play. Something to think about …….
Post a Comment