Friday, July 15, 2016




Water hoses are hate speech -- or something like that

On Tuesday, KRON learned about a troubling suggestion made during a meeting amongst Oakland police officers.

Multiple Oakland police sources confirm to KRON that they were present when acting assistant chief David Downing used racially insensitive language when referring to the handling of protesters in Oakland.

This happened over a year ago when Downing was a deputy chief, sources said.

One Oakland police source told KRON that they were in a meeting when they heard Downing advocate for using water cannons against protesters and that the then deputy chief Downing seemed oblivious to the racial overtones.

Another law enforcement source told KRON that they were with Downing at a different meeting of Oakland police commanders, and deputy chief Downing suggested using water hoses against protesters as well.

SOURCE 


8 comments:

Bird of Paradise said...

Oh here we go again some whining little pansie got their feelings hurt and now speech codes must be enforced Well phooie on sniveling liberal twats

Anonymous said...

What is racial about water cannons ?

Spurwing Plover the fighting shorebird said...

Squirt guns and sprinklers next on the hit list of blabbering liberal nincompoops

Anonymous said...

I would like to know that too Anon 2:00.
What are the 'racial overtones' of using water cannons?

Stan B said...

So now we have to keep track of every method or device ever used on a formerly oppressed population, and be "sensitive enough" not to bring it up as a means of controlling unruly or riotous groups of those populations?

Anonymous said...

You have law and order or you have anarchy. A small percentage of the population have chosen anarchy. Given that we like to live in a democratic society they are out voted. End of story. First amendment rights only go so far. Anarchy is not a first amendment right as it infringes on the first amendment right of others.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:00 and 8:11,

Water cannons became (in)famous for their use during the Civil Rights marches in the 1960's. They were used against protestors who weren't violent or doing anything other than exercising their rights, innocent bystanders who were simply watching (who weren't doing anything other than watching) and against violent protestors.

The cannons were not used anywhere else in the US that most people can remember except against those Civil Rights marches.

That's why the cannons have the reputation they do because they were used on black protestors who were protecting for their rights.

That being said, there is something else going on here in this story. The man against who the accusation was leveled appears to have said it would be wrong to use water cannons because of the optics so the police had to find a way to control violent crowds other than with using water cannons.

Yet it was reported that the guy said to use water cannons which has been turned to show how insensitive the cops in general and this guy in particular are to racial issues.

Someone in the room - ie another cop - lied about what happened and what was said. He then levied a false charge against the man who later became an acting Chief.

In my opinion, the lying cop has to go. He needs to find another job where he is not allowed to have his lies harm the reputation of someone.

Gooniebird said...

Hey if you got a liberal wet would like melt like with dorthy and the wicked witch?