So our AG is openly advocating deliberate violation of citizens first amendment rights? Figures.
(Don't try telling me that a government deliberately withholding services from citizens over the content of their political speech isn't a blatant violation of the 1st).
What services was the AG threatening to withhold or implying could be withheld, Mr Person?
Seriously? Ok.
Where did I say that Barr was threatening to withhold them himself? I didn't.
Because as far as I read, he was commenting on the state of affairs that communities that get into the habit of attacking, denigrating, and disrespecting police officers will have a harder time attracting willing applicants to become police officers for those communities. That seems to be relatively reasonable assertion.
Where did the AG refer to applicants, Felis Leo? Two can play that silly semantic game. But we both know there are quite a few ways to say the same thing in one language, multiple words each having shared meanings. "Show me where it says" is a particularly silly game to play.
Here's what Barr did say:
"Today, the American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves . . . if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need."
I've been paying attention to the police protests, to the entire context of citizen-police relations in this country; I also have a bit of a professional in, since I do criminal appeals/post-conviction stuff. He said nothing about people not wanting to apply to be police officers. What he did say is that if communities don't "support" and "respect" police officers, "they might find themselves without the police protection they need." You cannot claim that's about people not applying to become cops without supplying a couple sentences.
It's an implied or suggested (again, the specific word doesn't matter) threat and it doesn't have to be one he himself would order carried out: stop protesting all these police shootings and show more respect, or they won't protect you. And guess what: there
have been incidences of various places that had seen protests reducing law enforcement in the areas. Patrols down, arrests down, the cops just stopped bothering. I think it was in particular the city the Brown shooting happened in but I'm not 100% on that, but then the precise city doesn't matter either.
The connection to the 1st should be an obvious. The cause, according to him, is a lack of "support" and "respect." The effect, he suggests, is "[communities] might find themselves without the police protection they need." If that's not adverse action against a group based on the content of their speech, I don't know what is.
It's clear what he's talking about and what he's suggesting, even if he isn't threatening to do it himself. Let's not bend over backwards to rejigger the words he actually said into some completely innocent rumination on people applying to become police officers, whatever the reason....
This is something nobody in any part of law enforcement has any business saying. They need to do their jobs no matter what level of "respect" they get (and you may recall that you're perfectly within your rights to call a cop a "son of a bitch").
