Several weeks ago, Quentin Tarantino attended two “Rise Up October” rallies in NYC. The rallies were to draw attention to the deaths of unarmed citizens gunned down by police officers. Tarantino spoke at the rallies, saying in part, “I’m a human being with a conscience … When I see murders, I do not stand by … I have to call a murder a murder, and I have to call the murderers the murderers.” Tarantino got push-back for those words in particular, although to be fair… even if he hadn’t said that exact sentence, I’m sure the police unions would be picking apart something else he said.
After Tarantino’s attendance at those rallies, the police unions threw a series of hissy fits that I still don’t really understand. They tried to say that Tarantino is a cop-hater, or that he called all police officers “murderers,” neither of which is true. The unions threatened boycotts of The Hateful Eight, and Harvey Weinstein is said to be somewhat concerned about the whole controversy. But Quentin isn’t backing down – he gave a slight clarification to the LA Times, but he’s sticking to the main point of his involvement with this cause: that some cops need to have their guns and badges taken away. That some cops kill unarmed citizens for no reason.
Last week, Quentin did a short interview with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, then Quentin appeared on Bill Maher’s Real Time on HBO. Here’s the Real Time video:
Tarantino says in part that the cops “are not dealing in a fair issue. They’re saying that I’m a cop-hater, which is slander, I didn’t say that, and they’re saying — they’re implying that I meant that all cops are murderers. And I wasn’t. What’s really sad about it is that we actually do need to talk to the cops about this. We need to get to the problem. We need to bring this to the table.” If you can’t watch the video, USA Today has a good summary here.
I actually give Tarantino props for not backing down, for standing his ground in the face of some of the scariest police push-back I’ve seen in a while. Jim Pasco, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, gave an interview to THR several days ago where he completely threatened Tarantino openly, saying in part: “We’ll be opportunistic. Tarantino has made a good living out of violence and surprise. Our officers make a living trying to stop violence, but surprise is not out of the question. Something is in the works, but the element of surprise is the most important element… The right time and place will come up and we’ll try to hurt him in the only way that seems to matter to him, and that’s economically.” WTF? No, seriously, WHAT THE HELL? Tarantino is literally trying to draw attention to police brutality, so the cop unions are like “hey, let’s behave like thugs and try to destroy this guy by any means necessary.”
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Seriously? What a bunch of idiots. They are completely proving Tarantino’s point and making the cop unions look like massive brutes.
Yep, what a horrible response. It just adds fuel to the whole “cops are power crazy ass hats” fire. Sad for all the respectable officers out there.
Absolutely.
It is sad and scary how Pasco’s state of mind is such a way that he believes he’s in the right and how defense for no reason… to think he is someone with authority
Exactly. Keep it coming, officers. With each passing incident you continue to show yourselves for the dangerous gang of buffoons protected by a corrupt system that you are.
Mac Tonight is a talentless dou che nozzle.
How is it that these people are even allowed to threaten him like that?
When did the US become a police state, or a military dictatorship?
I mean, had stuff like that thrown at me when I lived in Sudan … because, you know … SUDAN
Not the US
Good for QT for not backing down. I hope he has some serious protection
“How is it that these people are even allowed to threaten him like that?”
Unions.
Let’s be fair, not all unions are like that and unions have done some serious good for workers. Those that take these tactics — I’m especially looking at you police unions and teamsters — are reprehensible.
Thank you kitten!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ Alarmjaguar – Unions were a great idea at their inception, when they were truly needed. Now they mainly serve to protect their members, while absolving them of any true accountability for their actions. I see it all the time with the MBTA here in Boston and it’s not a joke as several people have ended up injured or dead from transit workers caught texting and driving, after several previous infractions that any one of us would have been canned for.
If you don’t think unions have been largely corrupt for quite some time now then just Google all the sh*t that was happening at GM and other auto manufacturers in the 1970s. Prostitutes, drugs, booze all happening in a factory setting (because what could possibly go wrong?) and all without consequence. Sure, that was an extreme case but my point still stands that people should not have absolute immunity simply because they pay a monthly due.
He participated in the rallies to promote his new movie so he is no hero.
I wasn’t aware that anyone was calling him a hero for this.
He is portraying himself as a line-crossing hero who is down with black people. With the number of activities that have gone on with this movement he is just showing up now? When his movie is about to come out? It is obvious that he is using this to promote his endeavors by getting his name out there. Shame on him.
So, you think he’s calling himself a hero and promoting his movie (Because he’d never get any attention for it otherwise?) and this seems to upset you more than the head of the police union threatening him?
I am a black female so no lectures on what should upset me. Police abuse of citizens is a separate issue from QT promoting his movie. He is trivializing the movement by making it about him which, unfortunately, is not unusual for some people. We need to keep our eyes on the prize and stop the guy who wants to set up a booth on the sideline to hawk his movie.
So what Black agenda did he use to promote his award winning Django Unchained?
It wouldn’t bother me if he used it to promote his film (not that he needs it, his past filmography has proven that) at least it got people talking which is the most important thing of all.
And no one called him a hero
No one is calling him a hero, and regardless of why he did it the POLICE should not be threatening citizens of this country. That is the entire issue people are having is the constant attacks, murders and threats the police make against black people especially men, women in general (look at the rape cases), and now a director who protested? It’s horrifying and disgusting!
Police took an oath to potect and serve and instead they are reeking havoc and instilling feat and distrust in our citizens. That is the issue. Tarentino is a non factor he is just the latest in a long line!
QT taking advantage of the problem is a different story than the problem itself. He should not promote his movie by tailgating on the misery of others.
@GL so we will just ignore the real issue of what the police are doing and focus on why QT got involved? Is that your plan? I have no illusions about QT, I know who and what he is. Everyone does…the issue is about the police and that is what most people are focusing on the POLICE’s behavior.
On the contrary, QT should be invisible so all focus goes to the real problem. By the way, whose picture is featured at the top of this page? We are doing what he wants us to do which is talk about him and his upcoming film.
“We are doing what he wants us to do which is talk about him and his upcoming film. ”
We’re talking about him and the FOP overreaction, but you’re the one who keeps bringing up his film.
Again, whose face is at the top of the page?
Why is he the face on the top of the page? Because the FOP is making a very big deal of this, when if they’d just ignored no one really would have paid attention to the fact that Tarantino was participating?
Im’ an hispanic man who suffered police brutality when I was a teen and I’m happy about Tarantino’s involvement, regardless of his motives, since he actually brought MORE attention to the important issue.
“Again, whose face is at the top of the page? ”
If it wasn’t for QT there would be no thread about it, and people would be posting about Kylie Jenner than talking about police brutality.
@Pablo who said “If it wasn’t for QT there would be no thread about it, and people would be posting about Kylie Jenner than talking about police brutality.”
Amen.. some people just don’t get it. He’s at the top of the post because the article is about him. Now if this was a Kylie Jenner post and QT was in the header the OP might be on to something but nah, it’s a QT post. Who’s pic should be there; Brad’s and Angie? 🙂
No one is calling him a hero, and regardless of why he did it the POLICE should not be threatening citizens of this country. That is the entire issue people are having is the constant attacks, murders and threats the police make against black people especially men, women in general (look at the rape cases), and now a director who protested? It’s horrifying and disgusting!
Police took an oath to potect and serve and instead they are reeking havoc and instilling feat and distrust in our citizens. That is the issue. Tarentino is a non factor he is just the latest in a long line!
But it’s a threat of an economic boycott. Which is a really common thing that a lot of groups and people do. For example, lots of progressives boycott Walmart and tell others to not shop there (myself included). Am I threatening Walmart when I do that? I’d like to think not. I’m telling people what I think of the company and that I think they shouldn’t shop there. If I showed up at a store and held a sign saying “Walmart exploits their workers” that’s not a threat. That’s me making my opinion known and trying to sway others to my side. If a group of cops show up an a Tarantino premier to do that, it’s the same basic thing. It’s not a threat, it’s democracy in action.
I agree with Sam. I boycott a lot of companies, including Cracker Barrel and Hobby Lobby, whose policies on women’s rights and gay rights I find offensive. Economic boycotts are a good nonviolent protest method. I have no problem with cops making their point of view known using a boycott; I would also think it was fine if BLM planned a boycott of an organization they disagreed with.
So that part of about “the element of surprise” was just about an economic boycott, not a very clear threat? Please. Don’t be so naive. That economic boycott was a throwaway at the end. Omit the final 3 words of that last sentence and you’d imagine some mafioso in a dank gambling room smoking a cigar saying that in a movie. Not some police chief.
“On the contrary, QT should be invisible so all focus goes to the real problem.”
This is absurd. The whole point of lots of people gathering in a very public place – to march and yell and protest – is to be seen and heard. QT did not suddenly lose his rights as a citizen who should have to become invisible; the salient point of the rally was to ensure that citizens don’t become invisible when it comes to police brutality and murder.
Totally absurd. More press coverage of these issues is great. QT brings more press coverage. @GeezLouise, you make no sense.
I respect and support the police who do their job to serve and protect with honor. Tarantino though was speaking about very specific cases that do not reflect serving with honor.
While I personally believe they are mischaracterizing what Tarantino said, and am frustrated at their approach of protecting all police officers at all costs, I support the expression of their rights to boycott Taratino’s film.
What I can not support is the head of the largest police union threatening Taratino. WTF?! That interview with THR is shocking.
So, while I had not planned to, I will now be buying tickets to see the Hateful Eight.
Yep.
@MiaGirl, exactly. I had no intention of watching QT’s film (because they are usually so over the top on the violence), but I will definitely be buying several tickets to the Hateful Eight because the police should not be allowed to financially wreak havoc on anyone who disagrees with them.
@Mia I wasn’t too interested myself but now I will be in a theater when it comes out.
Say what you want about Quentin, but I appreciate that he isn’t backing down. It drives me crazy when someone says something that can cause a debate, then they back step and say they’re misquoted.
Good for him for not backing down. Being a cop and carrying a gun is an immense responsibility and challenge. There’s no place for gun-happy cops anymore. And yes, the cops look like tools …
And they wonder why more and more people don’t trust the police! It is their behavior. They are killing unarmed people, they are lying about why, they are threatening people who say it shouldn’t happen.
Gee I feel safe and protected.
I didn’t even read the article….I just can’t stand looking at his face, and thinking about his foot fetish…because I happen to have a foot phobia! Feet gross me out, and QT grosses me out, too! The funny thing is, I ususally like his movies!
i applaud the man with birdshit on his sleeve.
they really picked the wrong guy, Tarantino cant be destroyed at this point as long as he does not do anything terrible to another human being. he has always been bullheaded and in this case its really good.
its insane that the police is openly threatening people in a so called democracy. they dont get that they will make everything worse. i wouldnt not be surprised if Tarantino gets pulled over more frequently and if they treat him bad they dont get that this will backfire.
They will make a deal with his coke dealer to take him down.
But it’s not a threat. He’s talking about economic boycotts. Which….are like, a common thing among protestors. The civil rights movement did it. Animal rights does it. Labor unions do it. If you don’t like the cops doing it, then you should take the same issue with everyone else.
@Sam – As I said up-thread, whether I agree or disagree with them, the police unions and anyone else have the complete right to call for a boycott of Tarantino’s films. Absolutely. They can protest what Tarantino said.
But, after reading the entire Pasco interview on the THR I believe what he said implies something more “sinister” than just the economic boycott. It is shocking to me that the head of the one of the largest police unions would speak like this –
“According to Pasco, the surprise in question is already “in the works,” and will be in addition to the standing boycott of Tarantino’s films, including his upcoming movie The Hateful Eight.
“Something is in the works, but the element of surprise is the most important element,” says Pasco. “Something could happen anytime between now and [the premiere]. And a lot of it is going to be driven by Tarantino, who is nothing if not predictable”
Mia – see, I think you have to read sinister stuff into that. “Surprise” protests are really common things. For example, the animal rights movement is notorious for “blitz” protests. Blitzing is a recognized direct action technique. And it is not illegal. When somebody says “thuggery” to me, I infer something illegal in nature – assault, vandalism, etc. Again, you have to read into it to see something sinister. I’m sure Pasco wants to talk it up very much, but I think you are reading into it. I’m reading it as threats of economic boycotts and blitzing protests – which again, nothing illegal about them. They’re not very nice to the targets, but they wouldn’t be protests if they were.
@Sam, by the NYPDs own admission and behavior they respond poorly to any kind of opposition. Take their response to Mayor De Blasio’s advice to his son to behave a certain way around police. They openly disrespected him in every way and deliberately slacked off on doing their jobs following that. When I read the quote I saw sinister intentions as well. Think of how they behaved following the assault of James Blake. These officers (and their union) truly believe they’re above the law and behave as such.
“Mia – see, I think you have to read sinister stuff into that. “Surprise” protests are really common things.”
Except that with the behavior of the police unions, and certain police, it’s much easier to read into it.
As for boycotts, it is democracy in action. And it is their right. But one of the things that has happened as a part of the militarization of American police is the lack of democracy: they don’t have to follow the rule of law, and they don’t like civilian oversight.
So if you wonder why those comments are being interpreted they way they are, recent history is the answer.
Tdub: except again, show me where Pasco actually alleges anything illegal. And I should add that in the DeBlasio case you’re citing, again, nothing illegal was done. You’re trying to show a history of illegal protest tactics where none exist. So again, I gotta ask what your evidence is for presuming Pasco is referring to anything illegal. CR, same question. You state that the police are easier to read, but don’t offer any actual evidence of that.
@Sam, as cr and I both stated, our perception is based on their previous behaviors. Deliberately declining in job duties was the go-to reaction for weeks by the NYPD, so it’s not hard to assume that their response to this would be something else untoward. No, I have no proof of this, but they have no proof that Tarantino hates cops. It’s kind of a lose-lose on both sides.
But you’re still dodging the question. You raised how they reacted to DeBlasio – which while you might have disliked, as I pointed out, nothing illegal was done. They responded in a distasteful way, but again, you couldn’t produce anything illegal they had done. So what makes you think Pasco is discussing illegal conduct here?
“I have no proof of this”
And that when, as a lawyer, I just sort of laugh. Since that’s kind of the point of this whole thing.
@Sam: “You state that the police are easier to read, but don’t offer any actual evidence of that. ” I’m not talking about protest tactics in my comment, except at the beginning, I’m talking about behavior overall.
Even a few years ago, the police were given the benefit of the doubt. But it’s much easier to read the possibility of something more sinister into it now, because of everything that’s happened. Not just police brutality, but the responses of the the unions to the police behavior. Very rarely will a union look at an incident and go ‘not going to defend that’.
They’ll defend an unqualified officer in Cleveland gunning down a 12 year old. So it doesn’t surprise me that that Pasco would overreact to this.
Police killings of unarmed civilians as of September:
http://www.mintpressnews.com/776-people-killed-by-police-so-far-in-2015-161-of-them-unarmed/209127/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/how-police-unions-keep-abusive-cops-on-the-street/383258/
http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/opinions/love-move-bombing-anniversary/
You’re so focused on protests/boycotts and whether the FOP specifically threatened something illegal that you’re ignoring the larger picture, the overall pattern of behavior and how people are perceiving it.
You’re so very focused on legalese and your ‘point’ that you’re missing our point.
I think Tarantino is an opportunist and wrong in many cases. In this case though he is right. Good for him for not backing down and good that he is outspoken about it. The police officer should get fired for that. He’s overstepping his boundaries by a lot and makes the whole police look bad.
Jim Pasco and the police union “leaders” need to stop acting like irrational thugs. It sounds to me that part of the issue with police tactics is that they have poor leaders who don’t want to address their problems. They would rather put all their energy into twisting Quentin’s words. He is the one showing true leadership by addressing an obvious issue and not backing down under their bullying.
It was smart that he stood his ground because the tide is turning back in his favor.
He’s being an opportunist to sell his movie. QT has never come out before against any of the police.
Because the police protect his million dollar house in his upscale neighborhood.
This is a Tarantino movie. It would and it will sell with or without this discussion.
The police shouldn’t have engaged. If they are rightgully or wrongfully accused, at this point it hardly matters. This Pasco dude outed himself as an idiot and maybe the police as a bunch of thugs.
How can you predict the success of his movie? Big names put out big movies but not all are successful. Obviously he felt he needs to promote it by pulling this stunt so maybe he himself is not so sure.
All hey did was prove his point. Police unions are scary and the tactics they use against protestors proves they have a problem. If there’s a prominent protestor they are the first to be targeted for arrest. They post on private police boards about some scary ish. It’s crazy
We have a problem and no I do NOT feel bad for cops. You’re supposed to be the best of us not the scum of the earth.
Now I’m getting tired of him. He was on TV complaining about his “first amendment rights.” Dude, no. You said what you said. Rightness aside, nobody tried to prevent you from speaking. Some people disagree with you – and those people are using their First Amendment rights to talk right back at you, and also suggest that people who disagree with you don’t go to your movies. It is not slander – firstly, you’d have to prove that you don’t hate cops. How do you prove that? Secondly, you’d have to show that what they said harmed your reputation, when it’s just as likely that your own words did the harm. I haven’t worked in defamation law for a long time, but trust me, there’s nothing close to slander going on here. And the First Amendment is working just as it should.
Regardless of whether I agree with him in any respect (because that’s beside the point), I get tired of people complaining about this stuff. I gave up on Mark Ruffalo after he was crowing on Twitter about how “artists” should be able to speak out “without fear of retribution.” Uh, no, dude. That is not how this works. Tarantino can say whatever he wants, but anybody else can say whatever they want right back. I’d admire him if he said, “I stand by my statements. If that harms my career, so be it. I believe in what I said, and I accept any consequences of that.” Now THAT, I’d admire. That takes guts. But now it seems like he realizes that maybe his movie won’t do so great over this, he’s starting to flail. It’s becoming a Dixie Chicks type thing, fast. And what a shame.
And I should add, while the police union dude certainly phrased it horribly, if you read it with even a slightly critical eye, he’s talking about economic boycotts. Which is…sort of one of the oldest and most effective protest moves. That’s not a threat, that’s a direct action. I might totally disagree with him, but there’s nothing threating about what he said. He’s saying that they’re going to stage protests at theatres playing Tarantino movies, is what I got. I mean, labor unions have done stuff similar to that. disruptive protests are a recognized thing and multiple groups have used. If you disagree with such tactics overall, that’s one thing, but it’s an actual protest tactic that’s used all the time.
Phrasing does matter. The right phrasing would have put the police in the driver’s seat and the boycott woild have been successful.
Why did Pasco get the phrasing wrong?
Except he didn’t. Like I said, there is nothing in his statement that suggests the union is going to undertake illegal acts. He’s suggesting that the protests with be by surprise – which is a fairly standard thing in direct action; look it up, it’s called blitzing. Small, loud protests that spring up. What did you think it was when the BLM protests stormed the stage with Bernie Sanders or disrupt meetings? That’s a form of blitzing. Where do so see Pasco actually alluding to anything illegal? I don’t. I’m not saying it is a foregone conclusion that nothing illegal will happen, but right now, you are presuming as such, while there is no good evidence.
@sam everything about that phrasing and past police behavior…
killing a 12 year old CHILD playing in the park,
choking a man to death who at most deserved a ticket,
driving so rough they broke a man’s spine and killed him
hoping on the hood of a car and firing what was it 34 shots into a couple,
slamming a teenage girl in a bikini onto the cement for swimming at a friend’s pool
These are the ones that pop into my head right now but it’s barely the tip of the iceberg for the year! Is why this is being read as the clear violent threat it was intended as. The police behavior has earned the distrust hey are now receiving!
Certain elements within police forces are accused of corruption, bias and abuses of power, so Pasco’s response is making threats like a mob boss. Well I don’t know about you, but I am now convinced that the police are all perfect angels of light and totally to be trusted.
What a bunch of thugs they are acting like!
what a self-serving idiot Tarantino is!
just trying to get free publicity for his movie — and pretend that stereotyping the police is ok.
Except he never labeled all the police as murderers, but seeing as how several unions have come out with threats against him he is rightfully labeling them as thugs. They are thugs. They’re supposed to be law enforcement working in the best interest of the community and instead they’re fuming because someone said something to hurt their fee fees.
So you know, instead of ignoring him, working with dignity and class, and trying to prove the public perception of them wrong they’re too busy ranting about Tarantino.
Did any of they unions speak up about the recent officer who was revealed to be a dirty cop ready to kill a politician? Or were they all too busy furiously drafting up an insulting response to Tarantino?
Except he didn’t do that. He called murderers murderers. Just because they wear a badge and committed murder while working doesn’t negate the fact it was murder….we have it on tape we’ve seen it.
This came up over the weekend with my parents (we’re supposed to have a strict no-politics/religion rule, but it came up anyway) and my mom was OTT about Tarantino and expecting me to fight back (she knows I like his movies), and all I said was no one is forcing anyone to go see his movies. She, and anyone else, can stay home if they so please. But she kept going, talking about a police officer who was killed before the protest or something like that, and how it was in bad taste to protest because of that (I still don’t really get this argument), so I told her about the recent case of a white sixty-something rancher who was killed by deputies. He was called out, by local 911 dispatch!, to put down a steer that got out on the highway and was hit by a car. There were also a couple deputies on the scene (it seems like this whole thing happened on the road), and instead of letting this rancher put down his steer as humanely as possible, they shot and killed the rancher. He was not unarmed: he had the shotgun he was going to use on the steer. But how it even escalated like that is beyond me. And this guy’s family is in the local media, calling the deputies who killed him “murderers,” but no one is boycotting this guy’s ranch or threatening his family.
She didn’t have a response.
Ha! Perfect response to your mom. Nicely done.
Was it a white guy who was killed this this time? If so, maybe that’s why. Not do easy for people to see their lives as worthless.
It was. He was an older white rancher. My mom thought I was making it up.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article43654638.html
I admire loyalty. But loyalty means standing up and speaking out against those whose behaviour brings your tribe down and makes you look bad. Not blindly supporting everyone within your tribe.
The last cop that was publicly hailed as an amazing hero gunned down in the line of duty trying to protect his community was actually a dirty cop who staged his own suicide. He was stealing from his own police department, discussing planting evidence and possibly killing a politician all to cover his ass from being discovered.
So no, I’m not going to give the police union the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their threats. Stay safe Tarantino, all it takes is one little ‘accident’.
The cop said he wants to hurt Tarantino economically. Unless I’m misreading it that’s not a threat of violence.
It’s not, but the preceding parts of the comment are a bit over the top, which is why we’re pointing out that it can be interpreted in ways that indicate maybe violence wouldn’t be ruled out.
As already pointed in the comments with Sam, based on behavioral patterns of the FOP and the ‘bad cop’ elements, reading more into Pasco’s comment isn’t a leap of logic that it might have been a few years ago.
But you haven’t argued for a pattern of behavior. Is there actual evidence of the union as an organized group engaging in patterns of violence and/or illegal conduct? You’ve produced nothing to actually establish that. I get that we’re not in a court of law, but even for the court of public opinion, your argument is flimsy.
It’s analogous to PETA. PETA has openly supported certain individuals who have engaged in violence in the past – including some people who have been members. However, the organization itself has never been accused of engaging in violence or supporting it among the members. Some environmental groups have vocally supported terrorist groups like ELF or Earth First – but does that create violence by association? Of course not. But you’re essentially arguing that here – that the union’s support for some officers who have been violent individually essentially makes the union a violent organization. But that simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
And let me respond to your above post with the copius links. Again, my lawyer brain demands that you show the causal linkage between the union and these particular actions. And you’re saying I am missing your point – no I am not. You are the one trying to make a legal argument where none exists. Nothing Pasco said could be reasonable construed to be actual threats of violence. If the UNION itself had a history of violence, that would be different. You are arguing that because some of the members have been violent, the union itself is. Which again, is BS.
So please answer – since some of PETA and Greenpeace’s members have done violence in the past, and the organizations have continued to support them (which they have done in a few cases), does that make these organizations violent by association? Because that is what you are effectively arguing. And it’s not legalese to argue things based upon logic as opposed to the feelings you seem to be going off of. You allege there is a behavioral pattern on the FOP’s part, but every link you provided shows only statements of words or symbolic actions on their part – so what actual behaviors do you refer to? I don’t see them; point them out. And “bad cop elements” – in a regular movement, this would be what would be referred to as the “radical fringe element.” Almost all protest groups have elements that go beyond the scope of the group – but again, answer me as to how the group bears responsibility for them.
At the time QT spoke (briefly) at this rally, his new movie wasn’t due to come out for another 2 months (release date is Christmas Day). That’s kind of far in advance to start a publicity stunt. If you think about it, the police are the ones promoting his movie! They’re even promising additional publicity stunts when it opens!! I might even buy a ticket and I’ve never seen a QT movie in my life.
It’s just sad because they really, really need to address the real issue and not this non-issue of a famous person hurting their feelings. There are extra-judicial executions happening, on the streets and inside the jails. Worst case scenario: individuals with sociopathic tendencies see that they can literally get away with murder and mayhem as police officers and join the ranks. Both the public at large and the honest cops will be even more at risk then.
This Pasco individual, I believe, is using deliberately intimidating language. This is a group of heavily armed individuals targeting one guy, even if he is rich and famous. I know Pasco says this big Surprise is economic in nature, but it’s IN ADDITION TO the boycott. It’s an OTT response designed to scare us all into silence.
They said they were going to hurt him financially. So I’m guessing that’s a massive protest during his film premier. They used the threat of economics, no different than what the Mizzou players did. And that type of protest is smart and any group can use it if they see fit. Hitting people in the pocket book makes a mark. No violence necessary. And before anyone comes at me for comparing the protests of the football team to the protests of police, I am comparing similar methods ONLY.
Ok the Mizzoula players came out with a lovely well thought out statement standing up for something right, they didn’t put valed threats of violence or hate it was just a lovely moment. That frankly their family, friends and fans should be beyond proud of.
This was gross. Sinister, creepy and frankly a blatant misrepresentation of what happened. If the police are offend that is their right, but what this man said was inappropriate and does give the allusion that the police will harass or hurt QT, not just financially.