While I agree with you, a little empathy here is warranted. Those weren't fealty statements as much as they are just CYA statements for the businesses suing because they fear reprisal from the mob, politicians, and media. They're in a shit situation.
It's disappointing. They could put in a clause for "political" neutrality but they don't have to. Putting in a disclaimer that they in effect do not waive fealty to the cause that started the whole thing may really harm their own case. There is co-liability between BLM and the city. If the suit addresses the city then it's already excluding BLM. The statement is redundant. If the suit were inclusive of BLM then it would be listed as the defendant.
If I were judge or something on that case I'd be pissed off having to read some garbage that has no relation what so ever to the suit.
It should be pointed out that there's no 1st amendment contention here but if they wanted to be clear they do not object to activities protected under that then this isn't the way to go.
The charges of systematic racism or that black people specifically endure significantly greater unjustified violence is false. It's not a matter of opinion but rather matter of fact. It's libel against the police force.
What happened with SPAZ goes way beyond 1st amendment and it's based on what really does fully qualify as their own beloved hate speech under even the strictest standards.
In that case it being based on obvious lies that are easily dispelled further brings into question the city's conduct in allowing it to continue.
It should be obvious for anyone to see that this is a movement backed by criminality. There's no widespread or significant police oppression of people on account of race.
There is overwhelmingly large scale police oppression of criminals. The only group that would be at war with the police and anti-police like this are criminals. Even if that weren't the case criminals are going to pile in. That is obvious and inevitable.
If you have a hate movement against the police then who hates the police the most?
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they're trying to confine the issue specifically to the willful mishandling by the city. The legitimacy of BLM isn't going to be ruled on in any way, so it will only make their case clearer if they first say they're in support of it.
Read the first paragraph, was disgusted, didn't read further. The very first statement of fact is pledging fealty to BLM....by the plaintiffs. WTF?
While I agree with you, a little empathy here is warranted. Those weren't fealty statements as much as they are just CYA statements for the businesses suing because they fear reprisal from the mob, politicians, and media. They're in a shit situation.
yes. Every business that supports BLM, you dont know who actually does or who is doing it to try and save their windows.
Elections have consequences. They voted for this and they’re ripping the rewards.
"reaping" . Unless that was just an autocorrect thing, then ignore me, I'm not trying to nitpick
We need a list of companies that have supported them though. I want to boycott
Hope you have a homestead. Impossible to boycott every one of them otherwise.
As a matter of principle it is good to be straightforward and honest. However in the art of war there is also value in deception and feigning.
Fuck these people. Antifa and BLM are animals. Screw this
It's disappointing. They could put in a clause for "political" neutrality but they don't have to. Putting in a disclaimer that they in effect do not waive fealty to the cause that started the whole thing may really harm their own case. There is co-liability between BLM and the city. If the suit addresses the city then it's already excluding BLM. The statement is redundant. If the suit were inclusive of BLM then it would be listed as the defendant.
If I were judge or something on that case I'd be pissed off having to read some garbage that has no relation what so ever to the suit.
It should be pointed out that there's no 1st amendment contention here but if they wanted to be clear they do not object to activities protected under that then this isn't the way to go.
The charges of systematic racism or that black people specifically endure significantly greater unjustified violence is false. It's not a matter of opinion but rather matter of fact. It's libel against the police force.
What happened with SPAZ goes way beyond 1st amendment and it's based on what really does fully qualify as their own beloved hate speech under even the strictest standards.
In that case it being based on obvious lies that are easily dispelled further brings into question the city's conduct in allowing it to continue.
It should be obvious for anyone to see that this is a movement backed by criminality. There's no widespread or significant police oppression of people on account of race.
There is overwhelmingly large scale police oppression of criminals. The only group that would be at war with the police and anti-police like this are criminals. Even if that weren't the case criminals are going to pile in. That is obvious and inevitable.
If you have a hate movement against the police then who hates the police the most?
C R I M I N A L S.
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they're trying to confine the issue specifically to the willful mishandling by the city. The legitimacy of BLM isn't going to be ruled on in any way, so it will only make their case clearer if they first say they're in support of it.