Never one to pass up an opportunity to sound like vindictive and petulant psychopaths, the
One Million MomsFraternal Order of Police say that in addition to their boycott of Hateful Eight, they also have a “surprise” for Quentin Tarantino. I wonder what that might be? Probably allowing him to exercise his 1st Amendment rights without fear of retribution from the state-sanctioned branch authorized to use lethal force, I bet. Nope.
Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, would not go into any detail about what is being cooked up for the Hollywood director, but he did tell THR: “We’ll be opportunistic.” Tarantino has made a good living out of violence and surprise,” says Pasco. “Our offices make a living trying to stop violence, but surprise is not out of the question.” The FOP, based in Washington, D.C., consists of more than 330,000 full-time, sworn officers. According to Pasco, the surprise in question is already “in the works,” and will be in addition to the standing boycott of Tarantino’s films, including his upcoming movie The Hateful Eight. “Something is in the works, but the element of surprise is the most important element,” says Pasco. “Something could happen anytime between now and [the premiere]. And a lot of it is going to be driven by Tarantino, who is nothing if not predictable. The right time and place will come up and we’ll try to hurt him in the only way that seems to matter to him, and that’s economically,” says Pasco. When asked if this was a threat, Pasco said no, at least not a physical threat. “Police officers protect people,” he says. “They don’t go out to hurt people.”
Oh, I get it now. The whole “fraternal” thing means that if you say one is a murderer then all of them are murderers. Or that might mean they’re projecting because they know they’re culpable of defending actual cops who murder people. Whose to say really. Or it may be like that time I said Adrian Peterson shouldn’t beat his kid, then people boycotted the site because I was spewing anti-parent rhetoric. Actually that didn’t happen because that would be dumb and not make any sense. I’m glad we can have this conversation. You know who can’t? Jeremy Mardis. The 6-year old autistic boy in Louisiana who was shot multiple times in the head chest by Louisiana police. If only his father hadn’t tried to drive his car into police officers.
Colonel Michael Edmonson, head of the Louisiana state police, denied earlier reports that Few had been reversing his car toward the officers, who then had to defend themselves. “No. I didn’t say that,” he told the Guardian. “That didn’t come from me.”
Well, he shouldn’t have had a warrant then.
Edmonson and District Attorney Charles Riddle III both said they were unaware of any outstanding warrants for Few’s arrest. Records in both Marksville city court and and the area district court show several traffic violations and a recent DWI conviction but no outstanding warrants.
Whatever, he’s an idiot for shooting at cops with his kid in the car.
Edmonson initially described the shooting as “an exchange of gunfire”, but later clarified that only the officers had shot, and that investigators had found no gun in Few’s car. Officials had previously declined to confirm whether officer gunfire was responsible for Mardis’s death.
You expect me to believe that? There’s another side to this story.
[Edmonson added that the officers involved – there are four – had so far refused to speak with state police investigators. Police have not released the names of the involved officers. Asked by the Guardian what reason they offered for their silence, Edmonson said: “You’d have to ask them. We are trying to talk with them.”
Bullshit. Somebody must be talking.
Few’s fiancee, Megan Dixon said…Few was afraid of the marshals, because he and and one of the marshals on the scene had a prior personal conflict.
It pretty much just goes on like this for a while. And none of it sounds good. Look, putting on a cape doesn’t make you Superman, and putting on a blue uniform doesn’t make you a vigilant hero above reproach. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to understand, but you can want brave, honest men and women putting their lives on the line to keep the world from becoming veritable chaos and, at the same time, not want those same people shooting a 6-year old in the face because one of them had a beef with his dad then using your unquestioning support to avoid indictment. If you can’t understand, ask yourself why you were so quick to believe that Lt. Charles Joseph Gliniewicz was indirectly killed by the Black Lives Matter movement before you found out he tried to plant drugs and eventually attempt to put a hit out on the village manager who was auditing him for embezzling? Then ask yourself which “rhetoric” is really more dangerous here? Everyone knows being a cop is a difficult and mostly thankless job. But that doesn’t give them a free pass. If a criminal put a police officer’s life in danger, he should be shot then ran over then shot again. But a 6-year old riding with his dad? A 12-year old on a playground playing what we all played as kids? A recent orphan who just begging for anyone to pay attention to her? A man getting choked to death because he had the audacity to sell cigarettes? A man getting his spinal cord severed because he made the cops have to run? Is this really want you want in the world you live? It can’t be. There’s no way it can be. And if it is, please be real with yourself for your reasons for doing so. That being said, the next time you see a police officer, stop and thank them for their service. There’s a good chance they’ll be the one who doesn’t need a thank you but will appreciate it anyway.
Here’s Lucy Pinder’s tits. Your “stick to tits” argument is invalid.