Police Union Threatens Quentin Tarantino With 'Surprise'

[Grassy Knoll]

Source: huffingtonpost

The head of the Fraternal Order of Police said he has a "surprise" for filmmaker Quentin Tarantino.

Jim Pasco, executive director of the largest U.S. police union, offered the creepy statement Thursday to The Hollywood Reporter, vowing to get back at the "Pulp Fiction" director for comments decrying police brutality at a rally last month.

Pasco wouldn't give details, but promised the union will "be opportunistic" with the surprise some time before the premiere of Tarantino's new film, "The Hateful Eight."

"Something is in the works, but the element of surprise is the most important element," Pasco said. "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."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-union-quentin-tarantino-surprise_563bfddde4b0411d3070793c

[randys1]

1. Fire all police, recreate them with all new officials and police

THIS

IS

FUCKING

INSANE

But if I am the only one getting MAD AS HELL, nothing will change



p.s. I have not heard of this movie, I now have heard of it and I will go see it...so ....................

I fear typing anything critical of these guys, we are not safe in this country any longer

[heaven05]

5. true that

[turbinetree]

34. What I want to know........................

is this what a gestapo state looks like---------------this is insane in my humble opinion
And then this is what happens to someone on the ground:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/05/pennsylvania-jury-acquits-lisa-mearkle-the-first-police-officer-tried-for-a-2015-on-duty-shooting/


Honk--------------for a politcal revolution Bernie 2016

[grntuscarora]

60. +1

[onecent]

76. welll fuck the fraternal order of police....who the

fuck do they think they are anyway>>>>>

this fucking world is getting way out of hand.....I hope Tarintino has big body guards and lots
of witnesses...fuckers

[blackspade]

2. So the cops add terroristic threats to their repertoire...

The FOP keeping it classy!

[jtuck004]

3. Hello, Department of Impotence? I mean Department of Justice. You paying attention? n/t

[Ikonoklast]

41. Sorry, we have some kids smoking a joint whose lives we need to ruin, call back later.

DoJ under Obama has been a fucking joke.

[heaven05]

4. How can this

individual get away with a threat such as this....? If it had been any number of black film makers, probably would be dead or in jail by now, or both in jail and killed.

[christx30]

14. Because who's going to arrest him for the threats?

The police?

[MynameisBlarney]

31. The FBI

would be my guess

[christx30]

36. Do you honestly see the FBI stepping in

and arresting this guy? As much of a slime ball as this thug is, that thin blue line is very powerful.
I don't trust any of them to do the right thing.

[MynameisBlarney]

39. Hell, I don't either, lol

But if any group was gonna haul him in, I assume they'd have the authority.

[heaven05]

48. justice department?

Hell, anything happens to THIS individual, I know shit will hit the fan. No doubts at all.

[christx30]

55. The justice department said that there were no civil rights violations

that happened in the Michael Brown case. I'd sooner believe the Justice League would show up to help before the Justice Department.

[Orrex]

6. Maybe he means they'll buy pizza for the cast and crew?

Or maybe he means that he's a thin-skinned asshole who can't stand the idea of someone failing to give suitable homage to his paramilitary goons.

[yardwork]

7. Well, that was stupid.

I wouldn't tick off a film maker.

[Dustlawyer]

42. I know, right! Quinton will tell you, "Zed's dead!"

[Magleetis]

8. Thin skinned bullies

FTP

[christx30]

9. And then they wonder why people don't trust them.

"I'm going to beat you until you admit I'm merciful!"

[Bluenorthwest]

10. This threat making fascist should be instantly fired

nt

[99th_Monkey]

11. Kick for exposure. - As if we needed to be reminded, that police "unions" are anything but

real unions, they are protection racketeers, white supremacists, i.e. domestic terrorist organizations.

[kacekwl]

12. Kinda proves his point .

[Duppers]

64. Indeed it does. nt

[geek tragedy]

13. thuggish rhetoric from a cop 'union?' SHOCKING! nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

15. This is how cops want us to think they are different from organized crime thuggery ?!! Hmmm ?

[Calista241]

16. That is not a threat

Despite all the innuendo and interpretation.

And Tarantino is a celeb. In addition to their private security, Cops have extra patrols around people like him and their property to insure they're not harmed.

There is plenty they can do other than "threaten" him. For instance, they can decline to provide additional security at the grand opening of his movie.

[jeff47]

17. Wow is that pitiful justification.

SMH.

[Calista241]

18. I'm not justifying anything.

I think they're idiots. But in the eyes of the law, that is not a threat.

[Ed Suspicious]

33. But in the eyes of a reasonable person, it's a threat.

[w0nderer]

44. despite that, if it was issued

from a 'civilian' against a 'police officer' it'd be considered a threat and the issuer would be face first on the ground, tazed, cuffed, kicked, sat on, slapped into a car and dragged down town..

ie
walking up to a cop, and telling him you'll give him a surprise..."don't worry you'll make it hurt, but it'll be a surprise, possibly around or to his family too." <<< wanna bet on where you'll spend the next couple of hours?


but...legally it's not a threat as you say
that only matters really in one direction though

[Javaman]

46. ...

[LiberalArkie]

78. I think that is what they are going to do. Provide no or very little security at all. Just to prove

they are needed by celebs. Maybe an off duty cop will call in a bomb threat with a burner phone.

[villager]

19. DU used to have defenders of these "unions."

I wonder if any are still posting here?

[jeff47]

21. One posted right above you. (nt)

[villager]

23. Sadly, you are right.

n/t

[branford]

66. I'll jump right in...

I have no compunction about defending First Amendment or labor rights, even if I disagree with the message, as I do here.

The threat was issued by the union, a private organization, and per the article, was explicitly explained as non-violent and economic, with absolutely no actual evidence to indicate otherwise. Police, who are civilians, and their unions, have the exact same speech and labor rights as anyone else, union or otherwise, and threatening economic action is quintessential union and general political protest behavior. There will be no DOJ or other investigation absent far more information concerning illegal conduct, nor should there be, as the precedent would serve to justify attacks on labor rights and organization in many states and by the federal in any Republican administration against liberal and Democratic-sympathetic unions. Absent proof such real illegal conduct, or violation of any collective bargaining agreement, and unlikely scenario for off-duty conduct, there also will be no official officer discipline.

If the police want to protest, boycott and encourage others to do so, refuse discretionary security assignments (common of off-duty officers for celebrity events), engage only in the very minimum law enforcement activity concerning Tarantino and his Hollywood allies required by their contracts, etc., they are well within their rights, and if it was any other union, most people here would be cheering-on a labor union against a rich, white, celebrity one-percenter, as they have done numerous time before on DU. Quite frankly, there appears to be a great deal of situational ethics at play today, and it is decidedly illiberal and hypocritical.

Of course, anyone who so chooses can counter-protest or complain about the actions or speech of the union or any individual officer, and I fully encourage them to do so. That is how we do things in America. If an officer engages in illegal conduct, they can be disciplined or arrested, just like anyone else, and I'm certain Tarantino's friends, allies, and supporters will have more than ample opportunity to take video of any violations to ensure action and conviction.

Constitutional and labor rights and the well-established protest techniques of private individuals and groups do not disappear when exercised by conservatives or those we dislike, even if they involve police unions or officers acting privately (and in a far more limited fashion, while on-duty). Further, foolishly attempting to fashion exceptions to such clear rules is exactly the type of slippery slope that conservatives would love to establish to gain advantage over the vast majority of unions we find sympathetic.

Tarantino has engaged in public speech and protest, and it should come as no surprise that those he accuses of misconduct might do the same. His wealth and celebrity gives him his platform, and thus peacefully attacking him in the commercial arena is an objectively prudent and lawful protest strategy. If we don't like the nature and extent of the police and union protest, we can counter-protest. It's really that simple.

[villager]

67. Sorry, no. Police cannot collectively "threaten" because of the specifics of their public trust

Individually, they can speak out against Tarantino, just as Tarantino -- and not the Directors Guild -- spoke out against them.

Collectively, when they "threaten" under color of uniform, they are derelict in duty, hiding behind the "union" moniker, or no.

[branford]

69. Simply, no.

I would welcome any legal citations or collective bargaining provisions that support your propositions.

You are basically arguing that police officers, individually and through their private union, both on and off-duty, lose their First Amendment and labor and union protections because you don't like their message. Unlike the military, police are civilian and do not voluntarily relinquish any constitutional rights, there is no "public trust" exception, and they have no "duty" not to protest anyone or anything because thy have a badge, particularly while off-duty or through their private union. Respectfully, you do not understand the relevant law at issue at all.

In all my years of practicing law, including a stint at the NLRB (Region 29 - Brooklyn, NY), I've never even heard of such arguments

Absent actual criminal conduct or contract violations. neither of which appears to exist or are threatened, the only response to the police union's likely commercial protests are counter-protests. Feel free to wait for a DOJ investigation or complaints of unfair labor practices. However, you'll likely be waiting indefinitely.

[villager]

70. You have the "simply no" part right, viz. the police

But respectfully, because of the public trust, police cannot collectively make threats against those who displease them.

You are free to keep apologizing on their behalf, however.

[branford]

71. As I originally stated, I don't like the police comments or strategy.

Nevertheless, it appears entirely lawful and contractually permissible.

Moreover, the speech content exceptions propounded here by you and others are terribly detrimental to both overall labor rights and free speech protections which most often protect groups and individuals sympathetic to liberal causes and policy. Luckily, ridiculous suggestions like civil rights and extortion prosecutions will only occur in the fevered imaginations of the very few.

You might believe that due to some vague notion of "public trust" that neither police individually nor their unions can engage in protests you disapprove of, but absent certain very limited statutory anti-strike provisions concerning public safety and municipal employees inapplicable here (and generally opposed by labor and liberals), that's simply is not the state of the relevant law or jurisprudence, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise. There's no police or conservative speech exception to labor or constitutional rights, and the police strategy to hurt Taratino financially using tactics lawfully employed by other unions for generations might be unseemly or gratuitously aggressive, but such allegations are routinely hurled at other labor unions, and it's usually a sign that the tactics are indeed having their desired effect.

I respect that the elected leadership and administration of numerous police unions are zealously and diligently representing their memberships, and lament that other unions are not as effective, successful or popular with the public. Rather than complain about police union protests, we should learn from them.

[villager]

72. We may be arguing apples and oranges here

I never said the police union spokesperson committed an arrestable offense. For one thing, they would be very careful to parse their language in that regard.

But specifically, the idea of a police "union" making threats against a public person for exercising his own First Amendment rights completely demolishes the already-tainted notion that somehow police "unions" are good/noble collective entities.

They are simply smokescreens for covering for the ongoing lawlessness of the police themselves.

[branford]

73. Placing police union in quotes is foolish.

They are a union just like any other, with the notable exception that they are very popular with the public and they advocate more conservative politic than their fellow unions. This most certainly does not deprive them of any rights under the constitution or statutory and common law labor protections. Trying to enforce restrictions because you do not like the content of their speech, if successful, would have serious detrimental repercussions to the whole labor movement.

Tarantino exercised his First Amendment right to criticize the police. Although not legally relevant, he was a rich celebrity, and this provided very large platform and audience. To the surprise of absolutely no one, the police and their various unions also exercised their First Amendment rights to protest his comments and positions. They also appear to be employing economic boycotts and similar actions as leverage over Tarantino, all apparently without violating any criminal or contractual provisions. Friends, allies and supporters of Tarantino are counter-protesting the police position. This is as it should be in America, and calls in this thread for criminal indictments and worse are ludicrous.

Attempting to lawfully use economic leverage and public pressure is a cornerstone of the labor movement, and such tactics are as permissible for the police as they are for the Teamsters or teachers. It's certainly fine to believe that police shouldn't use such tactics, that it's abusive of your conception of "public trust," or that you simply don't like police or their unions, but those are the same or similar arguments employed by conservatives complaining about the conduct of liberal unions like teachers and nurses, and are not recognized as legally relevant in most instances. Positions often depend on whose ox is being gored.

Lastly, as with all unions, the purpose of police unions is not to be some "good/noble collective entity," rather it's to represent the will and interests of its members, and only it's members. This will undoubtedly irritate many progressives, but the success of police unions is undeniable and impressive. We should learn from their successes, and instead of whining, start to adapt.

[villager]

74. You are free to keep defending them, of course.

I myself prefer the actual side of law.

[branford]

75. The actual side of law?

Based on the information provided, the police and the various police unions have violated no law or collective bargaining agreement, no matter now much you wish it were otherwise. That's why we've heard of no investigations by any federal, state or local authorities, or even the threat of such investigations, even in the most anti-police jurisdictions.

You and others can wrap yourselves in knots trying to justify racketeering, civil rights or other causes of action, but to anyone with actual knowledge of the law, it just seems foolish and desperate at this juncture.

As I indicated before, I don't like the police threats. However, my defense of constitutional and labor rights far outweighs any ideological objection I have with the content of this specific police protest, particularly because I understand that in the near impossible circumstance where some of the ideas proposed in this thread ever came to fruition, it would be legally devastating to all of labor, and welcome by Republicans as they used it to bludgeon unions across the country. If you want inaccurately characterize this as defending the police position in their dispute with Tarantino, so be it.

Your "actual side of law" is nothing more than your faith, opinion and hope. Do not expect any legal action against the police unless circumstances dramatically change. If you want to counter the police speech and conduct, organize and counter-protest

[villager]

77. Do you defend police threats to this degree in the gungeon, as well?

[branford]

79. I like all my constitutional, statutory and common law rights,

regardless of whether it involves the First or Second Amendment, hard-fought labor and collective bargaining protections, or anything else. These rights protect everyone equally, not just those with liberal viewpoints, and anything else would be a legal and moral disaster.

You can try to twist my words, but my posts are clear. The police thus far have engaged in no illegal conduct, and are protected under the same legal provisions as more liberal unions. Rather than actually citing any actual relevant statutes or case law to support your position, your transparent "gungeon" deflection was meaningless, duly noted, and truly speaks for itself.

My, and your, disagreement with the police unions' message is irrelevant. Attempts to lawfully employ economic pressure against opponents is also a quintessential union strategy that is not limited to more liberal unions. As I indicated before, I also find it quite ironic that a liberal forum like DU is so vehemently defending a rich, white, Hollywood one-percenter against a strong union. The hypocrisy and situational ethics are astounding.

I will continue to defend the police unions', and all unions', right to engage in collective labor action, employ recognized and lawful economic pressure tactics, and enjoy free speech. To do otherwise would certainly be decidedly illiberal. I will also peacefully oppose the police's message in this instance, all while acknowledging their right to advocate such a message over my objections.

[villager]

80. You go right on defending the rights of cops to publicly threaten citizens and artists

I, however, am done with your equivocating in the face of the abuse of power.

Bye bye!

[geomon666]

20. Quentin can shoot them now right? I mean that's a pretty clear threat to me.

So it's self defense yeah? That's how these pigs work!

[saturnsring]

22. i see a smear documentary on nypd in the future

[MynameisBlarney]

30. It wouldn't even have to be a smear doc

they would only have to tell the truth and that would be damning enough.

[Octafish]

24. Veiled threats from the police show how low America has fallen.

Thanks Pasco for showing your true colors. Sieg Heil!

[KamaAina]

25. Looks like Tarantino may be starring in his own next film.

[Person 2713]

26. So the executive thug said you can't have an opinion without retaliation .

Hey fascist das ist schlecht

[MynameisBlarney]

27. That sounds an awful lot like

a threat that could get Pasco in trouble.

[They_Live]

37. Yep. He'd better hope that

nothing happens to QT.

[MynameisBlarney]

40. I bet QT's Lawyers

All just got wood.

[packman]

28. Sounds and feels like a threat to me

fuck them

[WestSeattle2]

29. So stupid. Poorly played FOP, poorly played.

[Iggo]

32. Fucking gangsters.

[yallerdawg]

35. As long as it doesn't interfere with...

"Protect and Serve" surprises are cool.

What if they actually came out to "Protect and Serve"?

That would be a surprise!!!

[PatrynXX]

38. yeah surprising Quentin a really big supporter of cops

would be interesting. reminds me of Ice T and Copkiller. He was referring to the bad cops. Now he plays a good cop on tv

[dinkytron]

43. Tarentino has way more friends than NYPD. I love Quentin more than his movies.

Quentin is a passionate man who leads with his heart. They are fucking with the wrong dude.

Plus, they are actually doing him a service by keeping him in the news cycle before his film opens. Just sayin'

[Enthusiast]

45. Just when you think cops couldn't get any worse.

[fbc]

47. I would not have gone to see this in the theatre

but now I will.

[tabasco]

49. "Be a real shame if anything happended to that new movie of yours, Quentin."

Fucking gangsters.

[olddots]

50. organized crumbs

( crumb was a term for bad guys 70 years ago )

[christx30]

52. My daughter's favorite

fun insult is "crumb bum".

[Monk06]

51. Sounds like extortion and racketeering to me. "Something in works" sounds like "We'll give him

an offer he can't refuse" Maybe targeted legal harrassment? That is definitely racketeering

[libodem]

53. Yep

Implied threat.

[Monk06]

56. And at the very least conspiracy to suborne Tarantino's first amendent rights. Which would fall

under Federal rackateering laws

[libodem]

61. Hmmmm

Interesting. Damn.

[Monk06]

62. Relevent US Code re violations of rights under color of law...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

[libodem]

63. Thank you

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Tarantino tonight on Real Time with Bill Maher

Should be good.

[dhill926]

58. yeah, just saw that....

expect Bill to bring it up.

[Ducksworthy]

57. They Could Taser Him Up and Shoot Him

Then yell "Surprise".

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

59. What do they plan to do?

TP his house?

[ohnoyoudidnt]

65. These fuckers are getting bold.

But I think they are messing with the wrong person this time.

[Humanist_Activist]

68. He's a leader of a criminal organization, a thug. n/t