Regardless of what did or didn’t happen on that airplane, the responses via their Facebook page are beyond the pale and indefensible. Though I’m sure some Trumpers will be by shortly to try.
We really need to get Bricker a Legal! And Constitutional! smilie, save the poor old soul all that typing.
(emphasis added) Do you really think that using the Sheriff’s official Facebook page was appropriate for these responses?
If it was Clarke’s personal page, such a threat would be juvenile and maybe actionable (IANAL) but using the County Sheriff’s page for this is not appropriate. Not to mention actually harassing Mr. Brown with deputies and dogs at the airport.
There must have been witnesses to this exchange. I wonder if this is why Clarke is not spelling out what actually happened in more detail.
And the fact that you apparently want to apply lesser standards to an elected sheriff acting in his official capacity than to everyday citizens is downright disgusting.
There’s no evidence Black has posted anything on social media about the event. There’s ample evidence that the sheriff has posted threats against him.
Black told the news a version of the events. The news contacted the sheriffs department for a statement. They did not provide one, instead they posted a statement on facebook that the news is lying, and that the sheriff feels he can preemptively prevent an assault. Then later decided to post a picture of Black with a threat against him.
Yet still you say we must reserve judgement until the sheriff provides an account of what he believe happened? We can’t point to his utterly irrational responses to this point and wonder if he is in fact an irrational person?
Let’s say that Black did more than shake his head, let’s say he told Clarke “You’re a son of a bitch and I’d like to clean your clock”.
Would even that behavior have justified greeting him at the airport with six deputies and two attack dogs? Much less the further harassment?
And I’m not being hyperbolic when I say “attack dogs”, I grew up with police K9s and that is what they are, albeit very well trained ones.
[Bricker] It wasn’t illegal, and that’s all that matters. [/Bricker]
I know, right, Bricker? Black probably smelled like oatmeal, and deserves to die after being mocked as a snowflake. Thanks for Just Asking QuestionsTM, Bricker!
What difference does it make whether I think it’s “appropriate?”
I think you’ve made posts here that are not “appropriate.” I think it was not “appropriate” for Madonna and Miley Cyrus to share an open-mouth kiss. (She’s way too old for her.)
But until you primitive screw heads wise up and acclaim me as your King, my opinion about “appropriate” is meaningless. I am, however, interested in the code of conduct we all agree to and are bound by – not “appropriate” but “legal.”
The OP alleged that the sheriff abused the legal power granted to him by his office. I pointed out that in order to determine that, we need to know what took place on the plane.
It depends. Suppose you were to learn that Back said to Clarke, “When we get to the airport, I am going to take the gun I have in checked baggage and shoot you through the head.” Certainly that would qualify as an imminent threat, and justify the response of deputies.
It’s certainly possible that it all unfolded just as Black claimed it did. But since Clarke’s story has not been revealed, I cannot know whether to credit his recital of the facts.
Indeed. I’d be very interested in hearing from them.
If it’s not explicitly illegal, or if there is a low probability of conviction, then everything the sheriff and his office did is perfectly acceptable and good.
This is the way things are for some people.
I’d say no – that’s too indefinite to serve as a threat. But if he said, “You’re a son of a bitch, and when we land and I have some room to stomp your ass, believe me, I will and you’ll be eating through a straw for six months while your broken jaw heals,” then THAT behavior would justify greeting him at the airport with six deputies and two attack dogs.
Right?
Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.
Not necessarily “perfectly acceptable” or “good”. We have to examine the semantic structures of those words, until your eyeballs begin to bleed and you flee, whereupon he wins.
You can create whatever standard you please and apply it however you like.
But if you suggest that there’s a crime here, then I am going to point out that the rest of society has already created standards to apply. If you’re just going to opine about how inappropriate the sheriff is acting, then go ahead; I am not contradicting you. I don’t think my own opinion about propriety is useful here, but if you believe yours is, go rigjht ahead.
No. There is usually a deputy on site at MKE. Having that deputy arrive at the gate would have been appropriate. The guy is getting off a domestic flight, he’s unarmed, and has committed a crime by threatening the sheriff. Arrest him at that point.
Yeah, it’s pretty safe to say 6 Officers and 2 dogs is overkill even if there was some threat uttered. Personally, I’m a little dubious at the “attack dog” description. Maybe Clarke was hoping his headshaking assailant had some pot on him and they were drug dogs.
Sorry, but that’s not “appropriate.” If the guy credibly threatened violence, then you send multiple officers.
The K9s I grew up with were trained for both roles. (Dad was a deputy sheriff for over 30 years)
And two K-9 units? Not generally.
And then you arrest him. The fact that this guy was apparently not arrested, charged, or cited, hints strongly that this was pure intimidation.
Yes, if he credibly threatened violence then he should have been placed under arrest. What’s your theory on that, Bricker?