quote:
The government does not get to pick and choose who they serve. This scenario would be a clear violation of the 1st Amendment protection of free speech. Never ceases to amaze how little "small government conservatives" are will to roll over basic rights to the government.

You're making yourself look like an idiot. Time to log off and regroup

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by tLSU

Member since Oct 2007

8691 posts

Posted on 9/3/17 at 1:24 pm to NYNolaguy1

You keep bringing up that "sworn to serve the public" nonsense about people who are off work. There's nothing being misunderstood here other than you insisting these people have some overarching duty to leave their families and go work more and just keep quiet about it.

Maybe Cleveland will pony up the money to fully staff it's police department. Maybe the Brown's owner will foot the exorbitant bill to hire private security. Or maybe he'll just tell the players to shut the frick up, as they have no first amendment protection from the owner.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by NYNolaguy1

Member since May 2011

21849 posts

Posted on 9/3/17 at 1:35 pm to tLSU

quote:
You keep bringing up that "sworn to serve the public" nonsense about people who are off work.

No, I dont think I did, actually.

quote:
There's nothing being misunderstood here other than you insisting these people have some overarching duty to leave their families and go work more and just keep quiet about it.

Actually I said that both sides are stupid, and I still

to myself over Clevelands bravest getting so fired up over a couple of thugs kneeling during the anthem that they decide to call off the game for everyone.

It's like my imaginary toddler throwing a tantrum so no one else can enjoy anything because of a parent saying no. I expect that of the players, not sworn (off duty) officers.

quote:
Maybe Cleveland will pony up the money to fully staff it's police department. Maybe the Brown's owner will foot the exorbitant bill to hire private security. Or maybe he'll just tell the players to shut the frick up, as they have no first amendment protection from the owner.

Maybe they will. Or more likely the teams moves. Mission accomplished I guess for team security. Now they dont have to worry about working during that offensive 35 seconds of that detail. Meanwhile the players keep their jobs.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by jimmy the leg

Member since Aug 2007

45331 posts

Posted on 9/3/17 at 2:01 pm to CaptainBrannigan

Okay, traffic...yes, security...no. Private security would be costly. It could also be considered a work stoppage, which may not equal 1st amendment issues. In short, much like Mardi Gras...NFL games are a quasi-private affair. With NFL games, alcohol and angry fans could equal litigation for private security. Let's be honest, when the shite hits the fan, the drunk a-hole won't give two shits about the mall cop. The real deal though, is a different story. The threat of having your arse forcibly hauled to jail or hit with a taser etc. carries some weight imo.

Page 1 2 3