Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke harasses, threatens Packer fan.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

Ok. Who read my opinion and seriously thought, “Finally, we have learned something relevant?” Which posters here believe my opinion is more relevant to the issue than a correct summary of the legal framework?

And if you do – why?

Now you’re asking for a poll?

Anyway, it would’ve just been easier if you’d started with “Based only on the information now available - and keep in mind we haven’t heard the full story - this looks to me like an abuse of authority but legally the sheriff was well within his duties to summon more officers and there are no legal restrictions I’m aware of that limit what he can post on the Department Facebook page…”

I get that you present your personal opinion as something of virtually no importance, but if someone is asking for your opinion, why waste time being coy about it? Get it out of the way and then return to your regularly scheduled legal lecturing.
For my part, if I saw “If Sheriff Clarke were to really harass you, you wouldn’t be around to whine about it” on a governmental website, I’d ask bluntly if Sheriff Clarke was seriously describing his ability and willingness to use lethal force as a form of harassment, followed by other questions about his feelings on the dictatorial methods of making people “disappear”, i.e. secretly arresting and executing them.

And in fact, I just did, posted this to the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office Facebook page:

Can Sheriff Clarke indulge me by indicating if he is in favor of making people “disappear” or opposed to making people “disappear”, in the sense of secret arrests and executions as has been and is currently practiced in numerous dictatorships around the world?

I have no illusions that Clarke or anyone else will care, but at least I went on record using my real name.

[elucidator]

No, no, no! He was simply suggesting that he would have been so embarassed by dissing a widely beloved and universally admired man like Clark, he would have relocated to a community more accepting of his flagrantly unpopular views.

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

A debate about the boiling point of mercury is also a discussion between human beings. A discussion about how many sharps are in the key of D major, or what enzyme produces primary transcript RNA, also takes place between human beings, unless Koko has learned the sign language for “RNA polymerase,” and wishes to chat.

What value do you believe personal opinion has in those discussions?

This is not a discussion about the law (per se), this is a discussion about people’s interaction with the law, which means that there is much more room for opinion.

To use your music analogy, it’s more like someone complaining about the number of sharps that a composer used, and you replying, “Well, the piece is in D major, and that’s how many sharps it has.”

This is actually valuable information, and a useful contribution, as it is possible that those you are speaking to do not know how many sharps are in the scale, but it is not useful to the complaint that the composer used too many sharps. Then you go on to accuse the complainer of wanting to re-write music theory, which is actually a useless argument, and is not a valuable contribution.

As far as opinion, you are correct that law is more important than opinion in many cases, but this is actually not one of them.

This is an elected official. There is a decent chance that readers and even posters of this thread are his constituents, in which case their opinion (and vote) is very important. There is a decent chance that other posters and readers of this thread live in a county with a sheriff, (very good chance, if they are in the US) in which case, their opinion, while not relevant to this particular case, is still important if they wish to prevent these perceived “abuses” of power to occur in their community.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Sheriff David Clarke: ‘Only Reason I’ll Be Reaching Across The Aisle Is To Grab One Of Them By The Throat’

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

You can invent any standard you please, and apply it to anyone you please.

My standard is, death threats by the armed branches of government (or those in a position to give them orders) against private citizens, are the stuff of banana republics. We used to ridicule places like that once upon a time.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I suppose in the hypothetical, it might not be illegal for a private citizen to publicly post something along the lines of:

[Picture of private citizen]
I could totally kill you if I wanted to.
I can see how that wouldn’t meet the standard for a threat, but I can also see how a reasonable person might perceive it as such. Does it matter if the person posting it has some actual governmental capacity and is using an official government medium?

[Bryan_Ekers]

To clarify in the above example, I should point out the private citizen posting the comment is using the picture of another private citizen with whom there has been some recent conflict.

[Thing_Fish]

@iiandyiiii

You’re okay with consequences including government officials using their powers and resources to intimidate people who express speech they don’t like, if that’s indeed what happened?

Is that a rhetorical question, or have you been lucky enough not to encounter octopus before?

[SteveG1]

@CarnalK

Unless I’m misunderstanding, Clarke is the local Sheriff. They were both coming home from Dallas.

OK, then he IS the local yokel. Still it doesn’t smell right.

[SteveG1]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Um, yes, we do. That’s how our government works here in the United States. It’s how societies in general work, too.

Absolutely. We The People decide. By electing, by firing, by changing laws or the amount of authority someone is allowed to have, by making sure EVERYone has to eventually answer to SOMEone, somehow.

[SteveG1]

@Bricker

As an aside, I am a Redskins fan, so as far as I am concerned the sheriff is guilty of several grave wrongs even without the airport incident.

That’s good enough for me.
Hang the bastard!

[Joey_P]

@SteveG1

Absolutely. We The People decide. By electing, by firing, by changing laws or the amount of authority someone is allowed to have, by making sure EVERYone has to eventually answer to SOMEone, somehow.

Trump (and Clarke, for that matter) may have been elected, but Clarke was on the short list to run the DHS. If you look at his Twitter feed, he’s said things that are pretty off the wall, considering he’s the Sheriff.

He’s said he would choke democrats (even though technically he is one)

He says that “Black Lies Matter” will join forces with ISIS.

He tells people that they need to riot to incite change

When people riot, he calls for the National Guard, Tear Gas etc

Calling the DC women’s march a ‘freak show’ with pictures of, for lack of a better way to describe it, nothing more then some girls with butch haircuts.

Referring to a few days ago as ‘celebrating the end of an error’ (how dignified).
The last few are just his past couple of tweets, but this has been going on for months. I don’t follow him and I’m really not on twitter so I don’t know if he’s always been like this of if it’s just been since he’s been getting groomed for the DHS job (that he didn’t get).

He’s my local Sheriff, but, to be honest, I never really took much notice of him until he donned the cowboy hat during his reelection campaign and showed up on all the billboards looking like GWB. Also, a few years ago, instead of working together, him and the police chief seemed to be butting heads. I couldn’t tell you who said what or even what it was over, but that was probably when I really started noticing him (and the Chief. I think it was Flynn).

Having said all that, at the moment, he’s acting about as much like a Sheriff as Trump is acting like a president. You can like or dislike their politics, and that’s fine, but taking to social media to fling insults is really odd. I mean, just today, from the Sheriff’s Twitter account (not even his personal one), he said “Sheriff surprised [local politician] watches football.Seems like a game too violent and physical for him to watch.Badminton seems more like him.”
Why not just say nothing. I can’t see any reason to make a statement like that other than because you know certain people will cheer you on for it.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Joey_P

I can’t see any reason to make a statement like that other than because you know certain people will cheer you on for it.

It feels good.
Hypothetically, what if someone posts a picture of Clarke with the caption Anytime we feel like removing you from office, we could do so permanently and real quiet, like at your house in the middle of the night. What if it’s a picture of Clarke standing next to members of his family?

I don’t know if that meets the legal requirement for a threat, but I don’t see how it’s substantially different from “you wouldn’t be around to…” Could the person posting such immunize themselves by following up with “I’m only kidding, what’s the matter, don’t you crybabies have a sense of humor?”

[Folacin]

@Bricker

Democrats removed the filibuster for nominations.

As near as I can tell, the Democrats may very well have started the filibuster wars (hard to tell who fired the first shot), so they are hardly blameless. But a significant cause of the removal of the filibuster was the GOP announcing that they would filibuster all nominees for the CFPB, since they couldn’t wrangle the votes to kill the bureau itself. That is and was an unprecedented escalation.

@Bricker

Democrats voted down Bork.

Yeah, after giving him hearings. And at least one D voted Yea, and a number of R’s voted Nay. And they had a vote on him even after the Judiciary Committee voted to not approve the nomination, which I don’t think had ever happened before. And of course Reagan had been told that Bork was unlikely to be approved, but nominated him anyway. And then the Senate fairly promptly ratified Kennedy.

[Chisquirrel]

@Folacin

Yeah, after giving him hearings. And at least one D voted Yea, and a number of R’s voted Nay. And they had a vote on him even after the Judiciary Committee voted to not approve the nomination, which I don’t think had ever happened before. And of course Reagan had been told that Bork was unlikely to be approved, but nominated him anyway. And then the Senate fairly promptly ratified Kennedy.

No, what they did to Bork was UNFAIR! So unfair!!! And they even said they were gonna Bork somebody else, so they were obviously just being dicks about Bork, because reasons! And LIBRULS!

@Me

I’m just absolutely amazed that someone found to have illegally fired a special prosecutor was even nominated for the Supreme Court in a blatant quid pro quo, and astounded that the way his nomination was denied is considered a black mark against Democrats.

[Shodan]

Since you claim that it was found to be illegal, perhaps you could cite where he was convicted. Or is this another ‘never mind what the law says, it was illegal!’

Regards,
Shodan

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Shodan

Since you claim that it was found to be illegal, perhaps you could cite where he was convicted. Or is this another ‘never mind what the law says, it was illegal!’

Regards,
Shodan

It was ruled illegal by a court.

Mr. Bork’s dismissal of the special prosecutor was challenged in a suit filed by Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, among others. On Nov. 14, 1973, Federal District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell ruled that the dismissal of Mr. Cox, in the absence of a finding of extraordinary impropriety as specified in the regulation establishing the special prosecutor’s office, was illegal.

[Bricker]

@Rick_Kitchen

It was ruled illegal by a court.

The court ruling you mention is not a reliable one.

The reason it’s not reliable is that it was a civil court case filed by Ralph Nader against the federal government, and Bork was not a party to the suit. He did not have the opportunity to defend himself. The federal government had no interest in defending the action. So the case was not adversarial; both the plaintiff and the defense were happy with the ruling. Neither one of them was Bork.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

The court ruling you mention is not a reliable one.

That’s okay; invoking Bork as an injustice (pun intended) isn’t reliable either.

[CatandMouse]

I wonder if Melania is going to go after Sheriff Clarke for cyber-bullying?