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?
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.