Cop FIRED for having racist memorabilia in his HOME!!!!

[Spamature]

No. Not “thoughts” of course. The criminal act is possession of offensive material.

But here "offensive" is a judgement on thoughts. The very idea of thought crimes are criminal because they are thoughts that are "offensive" to the state. Here both pedophilia and racism are deemed "offensive" thought crimes against the state. The truth is you can't support one without supporting the other, and you can't condemn one without condemning the other. From a 1st Amendment point of view both should be allowed. From a moral point of view both should be forbidden.

But you are arguing to have your cake and eat it too on thought crime.

 

[Dino]

But here "offensive" is a judgement on thoughts. The very idea of thought crimes are criminal because they are thoughts that are "offensive" to the state. Here both pedophilia and racism are deemed "offensive" thought crimes against the state. The truth is you can't support one without supporting the other, and you can't condemn one without condemning the other. From a 1st Amendment point of view both should be allowed. From a moral point of view both should be forbidden.

But you are arguing to have your cake and eat it too on thought crime.

Nonsense. Completely.

Child porn is illegal to make, consume and possess.
Discriminatory thoughts without overt action is perfectly natural, not illegal or immoral.

 

[Spamature]

Nonsense. Completely.

Child porn is illegal to make, consume and possess.
Discriminatory thoughts without overt action is perfectly natural, not illegal or immoral.

Wait, you're defending racism by saying it is not immoral ? The Klan and the Nazi might agree with that, most would find your opinion on that matter untenable.

But the court has disagreed with you on your legal point.

In a 2-1 ruling on Friday, the court said, "We find that the phrases 'appears to be' a minor, and 'convey the impression' that the depiction portrays a minor, are vague and overbroad and thus do not meet the requirements of the First Amendment."

The court said the balance of the Child Pornography Prevention Act, or CPPA, was constitutional when those phrases are removed. The U.S. government now has the option of requesting an "en banc" hearing on the issue, in which 11 judges would consider the case.

The decision overturns an August 1997 ruling by U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, who said fake child porn could be regulated because of the "the devastating" effect it has on society and on the well-being of children.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/court-overturns-fake-child-porn-act/

So my question still stands.

Should he be fired if they found what appeared to be child porn but were actually computer generated and did not involve real children.

 

[Dino]

Wait, you're defending racism by saying it is not immoral ? The Klan and the Nazi might agree with that, most would find your opinion on that matter untenable.

But the court has disagreed with you on your legal point.

In a 2-1 ruling on Friday, the court said, "We find that the phrases 'appears to be' a minor, and 'convey the impression' that the depiction portrays a minor, are vague and overbroad and thus do not meet the requirements of the First Amendment."

The court said the balance of the Child Pornography Prevention Act, or CPPA, was constitutional when those phrases are removed. The U.S. government now has the option of requesting an "en banc" hearing on the issue, in which 11 judges would consider the case.

The decision overturns an August 1997 ruling by U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti, who said fake child porn could be regulated because of the "the devastating" effect it has on society and on the well-being of children.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/court-overturns-fake-child-porn-act/

So my question still stands.

Should he be fired if they found what appeared to be child porn but were actually computer generated and did not involve real children.

Does the fact that you’re confusing adult-aged people posing as minors with computer-simulated children matter at all to you?
It oughta.

So in answer to your question, yes. Any officer if the law in possession of child porn, real or computer animated, should be fired.

 

[Spamature]

Does the fact that you’re confusing adult-aged people posing as minors with computer-simulated children matter at all to you?
It oughta.

So in answer to your question, yes. Any officer if the law in possession of child porn, real or computer animated, should be fired.

No difference. In fact since the computer generated images are not of real people, but created out of someone's imagination, they are the very definition of a "thought" crimes.

Stop trying to have it both ways.

Either you should support his firing for both or neither, but not for one, and not the other.

 

[JackDallas]

The last thing just didn’t happen.

Of course it happened; You couldn't admit it because it would have cost her the presidency.

 

[JackDallas]

This is what you get when you live in a state that has repealed the Second Amendment.

 

[EatTheRich]

Of course it happened; You couldn't admit it because it would have cost her the presidency.

Obviously untrue. She didn’t own “America’s uranium,” so she could not possibly have “sold it to the Russians.” Nor was there any such thin as the “Clinton Crime Foundation,” or any foundation associated with Clinton that was involved in criminal activity.

 

[JackDallas]

Obviously untrue. She didn’t own “America’s uranium,” so she could not possibly have “sold it to the Russians.” Nor was there any such thin as the “Clinton Crime Foundation,” or any foundation associated with Clinton that was involved in criminal activity.

Well of course she didn't own America's uranium. Obama didn't own the 150 Billion dollars he gave to Iran to continue their support of terrorism. NO politician owns the shit he steals, gives away, or uses for leverage to further his/her own agenda. Clinton sold stuff that belonged to the American people. She sold it for money that went into the Clinton Crime Foundation, phony charity. She didn't care that her action might hurt the country; she just wanted money and didn't care how she got it.

 

[EatTheRich]

Well of course she didn't own America's uranium. Obama didn't own the 150 Billion dollars he gave to Iran to continue their support of terrorism. NO politician owns the shit he steals, gives away, or uses for leverage to further his/her own agenda. Clinton sold stuff that belonged to the American people. She sold it for money that went into the Clinton Crime Foundation, phony charity. She didn't care that her action might hurt the country; she just wanted money and didn't care how she got it.

She didn't get paid for the private owner’s sale of the mining rights for that uranium (which didn’t come with a right to export it). Her charity, consistently rated by auditors as one of the most reputable in the world, did not get paid for the sale. She didn’t even approve the sale, except for her pro forms signature on a decision made by a subordinate of a subordinate of a subordinate, who was required by the regulations governing his decision-making to approve the sale. She could not have blocked the sale. The sale was reviewed by several agencies which found that it could not harm the country.

No, Obama did not own the money he released to Iran as part of a comprehensive deal that restricted their nuclear program. Iran owned that money.

 

[JackDallas]

She didn't get paid for the private owner’s sale of the mining rights for that uranium (which didn’t come with a right to export it). Her charity, consistently rated by auditors as one of the most reputable in the world, did not get paid for the sale. She didn’t even approve the sale, except for her pro forms signature on a decision made by a subordinate of a subordinate of a subordinate, who was required by the regulations governing his decision-making to approve the sale. She could not have blocked the sale. The sale was reviewed by several agencies which found that it could not harm the country.

No, Obama did not own the money he released to Iran as part of a comprehensive deal that restricted their nuclear program. Iran owned that money.

Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech by the Russians after Hillary sold them the uranium. Do you seriously think the Russians gave a shit what Bill had to say? The money was part of the payback.
And anyone who claims the Clinton Crime Foundation is not a criminal organization, they should check out what the POS did to Haiti:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098

 

[JackDallas]

She didn't get paid for the private owner’s sale of the mining rights for that uranium (which didn’t come with a right to export it). Her charity, consistently rated by auditors as one of the most reputable in the world, did not get paid for the sale. She didn’t even approve the sale, except for her pro forms signature on a decision made by a subordinate of a subordinate of a subordinate, who was required by the regulations governing his decision-making to approve the sale. She could not have blocked the sale. The sale was reviewed by several agencies which found that it could not harm the country.

No, Obama did not own the money he released to Iran as part of a comprehensive deal that restricted their nuclear program. Iran owned that money.

And thank God for Trump, who got rid of Obama's collusion with the terrorist nation of Iran.

 

[EatTheRich]

Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech by the Russians after Hillary sold them the uranium. Do you seriously think the Russians gave a shit what Bill had to say? The money was part of the payback.
And anyone who claims the Clinton Crime Foundation is not a criminal organization, they should check out what the POS did to Haiti:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098

That was the standard fee for a Trump speech. They wanted him for the crowd he would draw. There would have been no reason for the Russians to bribe Clinton to approve the Uranium One sale when her State Department was legally required to do so.

What they did in Haiti was attempt to promote capitalism at the expense of the socialist solutions that would have helped the Haitian people. Criminal in a moral sense, sure, but not in a legal sense.

 

[EatTheRich]

And thank God for Trump, who got rid of Obama's collusion with the terrorist nation of Iran.

“Collusion” to do what? Keep the world safe?

 

[JackDallas]

“Collusion” to do what? Keep the world safe?

How safe do you think the countries surrounding Iran feel?
How did Obama make the world safe by funding a terrorist nation? The shit you say is just plain sillyness.

 

[EatTheRich]

How safe do you think the countries surrounding Iran feel?
How did Obama make the world safe by funding a terrorist nation? The shit you say is just plain sillyness.

I think they feel a lot less safe now than when the JCPOA was being widely observed.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Cops are supposed to protect and serve all people.

If they have an animosity to a particular group of people then they cannot be trusted to protect and serve equally, in other words they cannot be trusted to do the job we are paying them for.

This they MUST be fired.

Cops are not legally obligated to protect anyone

 

[FakeName]

Cops are not legally obligated to protect anyone

And we are not legally obligated to give them a job if we cannot trust them to protect and serve equally.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

And we are not legally obligated to give them a job if we cannot trust them to protect and serve equally.

Take it up with the supreme Court

 

[FakeName]

Take it up with the supreme Court

No need.

The police fired him.

Rightfully.

End of story.