Is a guy who trashes veteran memorabilia a total psycho?

Given the brutal assault by an officer on a veteran in a city like Memphis—where the victim ended up in the hospital with a skull fracture and life-threatening injuries, basically left lying in a pool of blood on the street all because of a dispute over a sign—is it actually permissible to call an officer like that a savage?

Is it okay to comment on someone's actions and characterize those actions as savagery? Would using a description like that regarding a specific individual get someone penalized on this forum?

Can media reports featuring the veteran's own descriptions of that police brutality be used here on the forum?

Who exactly qualifies as a savage?

Is that word allowed to be used?

The moderator Roko (🙏) suddenly jumps into a thread about Cyrillic—a topic he doesn't even follow—just to issue a strike against this specific response:

>

dekameron2009 said:Rusin from Petrovac stayed behind during the frontier era, married a Srpkinja, lives in Vukovar, and get this: his kids go to school learning in English, yet here he is, stubbornly defending Cyrillic.

>

the response:

coppermarlin13 said:He’s absolutely smashing heads!

And I heard he’s hitting people brutally!

Total savages!

yet this post goes totally unpunished:

don Kacunko said:Three thugs and hooligans attack an American police officer and you guys are actually justifying it? Just let them...

Honestly, this is just revolting.

Roko, you should be ashamed!

Both you and anyone who decides to back you up right now!

It’s disgusting.

The way moderation works on the Politics sub is a perfect window into what actually flies here and what gets shut down. Take a look at this post that somehow managed to stay unpunished (post 4178):

don Kacunko said:We should just slash or completely eliminate these pensions to get these idiots in line—let's get these guys working on something actually useful.
That might stop them from destroying public assets and attacking civil servants.

If you're planning on writing stuff like Kacunko did, don't sweat it too much; the mods over on the Politics board won't be coming after you with any sanctions.

So, for anyone interested, feel free to start trashing our veterans!

You've got the full support of the moderators and the site staff!

coppermarlin13 said:given how a cop in a small town just brutally attacked a local veteran

😕 an officer assaulted a man simply because he's a veteran
I honestly don't think there'll be any trouble getting that officer fired for misconduct on duty.

At the end of the day, cops have a fundamental job requirement to use force when necessary.

By registering, you've agreed to our Terms of Service :

violating United States law (we want to specifically remind you about hate speech or discrimination, justifying or glorifying criminal acts, copyright infringement, pedophilia, animal cruelty, etc.)

A woman is raising a perfectly valid point here: is it legal for a police officer to be cited for "unprofessional conduct," yet somehow completely immune when they act like absolute thugs against everyone else?

And since when did labeling the behavior of public institutions as "lawless" constitute hate speech? You really need to stop making these things up and bullying users with your exhaustive, wildly inaccurate interpretations of the rules...

Sam Green73 said:😕 an officer attacked a man just because he's a veteran
I honestly don't think it'll be much trouble to get that cop removed for misconduct while on duty.

Look, officers have a primary responsibility to use force when the situation calls for it.

Terms of Service agreed to upon registration :

It’s pretty obvious from your post that you haven't been following yesterday's events in Memphis, nor have you kept up with how the media is covering them.

And honestly, what does that quote of yours even have to do with this discussion?

What "hate" are you even talking about?

Also, for the record, the local news reported that the officer has been suspended (though they added a bit of a disclaimer).

You'd probably be better off using your moderator tools to deal with Don Kacunka's posts, then stepping away from this thread until you can get some actual facts straight.

Thanks.

coppermarlin13 said:It’s pretty clear from your post that you didn't follow yesterday's events in Memphis, nor did you catch how the media was covering them.

And honestly, what does that quote of yours even have to do with anything we're discussing here?

Look, I'm just reading through this thread on the FBI site and reacting to what I see right in front of me.
It's all just political maneuvering and sensationalism at this point.

Sam Green73 said:I’ve been following the thread over at the FBI, and I wanted to jump in here to share my observations.
It’s all just political theater and sensationalism at this point.

Not only are you missing the full picture, but it seems like you aren't even reading the posts carefully.

Is using terms like "savage" or "savagery" against the rules on your specific subforum?

Seriously, is it?

Sam Green73 said:😕 an officer attacked a guy just because he's a veteran
I honestly don't think anyone's going to have any trouble firing an officer for excessive force during an arrest.

Look, cops have a job to do—and yeah, part of that job involves using force when necessary.

Terms of Service you agreed to upon registration :

And frankly, I bet you wouldn't have any issue looking up the actual legal definitions of "self-defense" versus "excessive force" before jumping in with that line about how "cops have a duty to use force"—assuming, of course, you're actually talking about their legal rights and obligations here.

It also wouldn't kill you to connect the dots for those of us who aren't legal experts and figure out how your little "savage" comment even relates to the rules you're trying to cite...

Sam Green73 said:I’ve been following the thread over at the FBI, and I’m just reflecting on what I’m seeing play out here...
Pure political theater and sensationalism...

You’re free to read this through an analytical lens and label it whatever you like—political maneuvering or sensationalist nonsense—but that misses the core of her inquiry. She didn't come here to debate the tone; she asked why she was being cardboarding, specifically whether such a post actually violates forum rules regarding hate speech, and how exactly you justify that classification. Her point remains: if her post was truly subject to being cardboarding, then one has to wonder why so many identical posts seem to escape that same fate...

Harold Nguyen6 said:I honestly think you wouldn't mind taking a quick second to look up the legal definitions of "self-defense" versus "excessive force" before you jump in and claim that "police officers have an official duty to use force." You know, assuming you mean they have both the right and the obligation to act? It might clear things up.

Legal Discussion Forum: Law

p.s. please don't go reading things into my posts that I didn't actually say

So what’s the point of even bringing that up? 🤷
Are you actually trying to suggest that a cop acting in self-defense crushed the skull of some guy who was cruising around with a 0.2% blood alcohol content?

And hey, you still owe me an answer on that other question—I really hope this kind of "selective" answering doesn't become the norm here on the "forum of all forums."

Sam Green73 said:😕 an officer attacked a man just because he's a veteran
I don't think it will be an issue to suspend the officer for excessive force while on duty.

Officers have a primary duty to use force when necessary.

No, I'm sure he didn't attack him just because he's a veteran. We shouldn't frame things that way, and we shouldn't portray the officer that way either.
But if the officer overstepped his authority, there's no doubt about it. Sure, the law allows for the use of force if someone resists arrest, but that's strictly limited.
I wouldn't call this kind of beating "authorized use of force." Honestly, I bet whoever wrote the police conduct laws wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that level of violence. They'd tell you right then and there that the officer went way too far and beat him senseless.

Let's be real—what happened in Memphis was an abuse of power. I believe the officers were trained well enough to handle the situation and make the arrest without leaving a man lying in the street, bleeding from serious head injuries, and then just abandoning him without medical help.

From what I've read in the news, if the reports are accurate, the officer has been suspended. To me, that says a lot about how he handled the job and whether he crossed the line.

I don't see any reason why we can't call this type of policing brutality or call the officer a thug. There are people like that in the force. Sure, they were doing what the state told them to do regarding legal duties, but they definitely had better options. At the very least, the officer involved could have called for backup from the local PP to take those three guys down peacefully if he couldn't handle it alone. They had plenty of ways to do this right.

But this specific officer shouldn't have done that, so I don't see why we can't call his actions savage.

This is also a quick response to coppermarlin13's question. Since I see the moderators haven't flagged the similar language used regarding the three veterans, I’m removing this warning. I really don't see the reason for it. Especially since, if one was issued, it wasn't applied equally in both cases.

Melissa Walker86 said:Look, you can choose to read this as just a little deep dive and label it as nothing more than political maneuvering and sensationalism if you want, but the whole point is that this user actually asked WHY she was being cardboarded—basically questioning if her post violated the forum rules by being flagged for "hate speech" and how you personally define that term. Plus, she's pointing out that if her post really was worth cardboarding, why haven't we seen other posts exactly like it get the same treatment?

The truth is, she’s just trolling. Like, constantly. Even the other folks jumping into this thread are calling her out on the trolling. Just scroll through the whole discussion and you'll see. And hey, just a heads-up, the official report from the Secretary given in Congress today didn't even mention anything about police officers being beaten—which is what coppermarlin13 claimed happened because that's the rumor she's spreading—it actually just described a guy who tripped while he was busy smashing tiles with a blood alcohol level of 2.7.

That's my two cents.

And of course, every single time coppermarlin13 gets cardboarded, she goes and starts a whole new thread over at the FBI just to point fingers and ask why everyone else seems to get a free pass while she's the only one getting hit.

Like Sam Green73 said, it's all just politics and sensationalism, which is basically what they pump out on CNN every single day, and then they bring it over here and act like it's absolute gospel truth.

wiredangler5 said:Look, I don't think he attacked him just because the guy is a veteran. We shouldn't be framing things that way, and honestly, we shouldn't be portraying police officers like that either. It’s not about making someone a hero or a villain based on their background; let's just look at the facts of what actually happened.

Based on what we’ve seen... I just finished writing that up! Looking back at that opening post, I honestly don't see any other way this could have gone down.

It’s really kind of you to step up and be willing to sit down with the FBI to walk them through everything that went down in Memphis.
I have absolutely no intention of turning my discussions with the FBI into a political debate.

coppermarlin13 said:Who exactly are we calling savages? Honestly, that’s a heavy word to throw around without some context. It feels like one of those labels people toss out whenever they're frustrated or just don't understand how someone else operates. In my experience, when things get heated in a discussion or a community, "savagery" is usually just a shorthand for behavior that lacks any kind of decorum or respect. Whether you're talking about people acting out on the streets or just folks being unruly online, it really comes down to a lack of basic civility. I've seen it happen in plenty of different circles—sometimes it's a misunderstanding, and sometimes, well, people are just being difficult for the sake of it. So, before we label anyone, we should probably ask ourselves what we actually mean by it.

To me, being a savage really just comes down to one thing: having zero respect for the basic rules that hold a civilized society together. When people decide they’re above the law and refuse to follow the standards we all agreed upon to keep things running smoothly, that's when you're looking at true savagery.

Sam Green73 said:Based on what she wrote in her opening post, I don't see any other way this plays out.

It’s pretty noble of you, stepping up to explain exactly what went down in Memphis to the FBI.
Personally, though? I have zero interest in turning an FBI inquiry into some kind of political debate.

To me, savages are just people who think they're above the rules and ignore basic civilized norms like the law.

Even back in '91, they forced that foreign script into Memphis using "legal" excuses and hiding behind authority. That's how it always works—every major atrocity in history gets justified by someone claiming they were just following the law.

Sam Green73 said:Based on what she wrote in her opening post, I don't see any other way this could go.

It’s nice of you to be willing to explain everything that happened in Memphis to the FBI.
I have no intention of getting into political debates at the FBI.

By posting that excerpt from the law regarding authority, you basically opened up a debate at the FBI about what went down in Memphis, which effectively justifies the police officers' actions. I just added my own take on why I think coppermarlin13 is justified in calling the whole thing pure chaos.

Sam Green73 said:The real savages are the ones who ignore basic societal norms like the law.

Sure, because wearing a uniform automatically turns someone into a perfect gentleman, granting them a free pass to act out—even if they silence people or get violent—just because they claim to be acting on behalf of the law.😉

wiredangler5 said:The whole legal excerpt you posted about authority is basically just you opening up a debate regarding the District Attorney's Office in Memphis, which honestly feels like you're trying to justify what the cops did in Memphis. I was just adding my two cents on why I think coppermarlin13 is totally justified in calling that whole scene pure chaos.

Right, because apparently, putting on a uniform turns a guy into some high-society gentleman from a fancy academy, and suddenly that uniform acts like a magic shield against being a total animal—even if they’re staying quiet about stuff or actually shooting someone, they can just shrug it off since they're "acting on behalf of the law." 😉

The Memphis District Attorney's Office announced today that there's reasonable suspicion that both individuals committed crimes against property by damaging someone else's belongings under statutes 235.1 and 3 of the Penal Code; additionally, one of them is suspected of assaulting an officer under statute 315.1 and 4, along with making threats under statute 139.2 and 3 against two police officers. Pajčić hasn't been questioned yet since he's currently in the hospital. There are strong suspicions that around 11:30 AM on November 12, 2013, the suspects used stones to smash the commemorative plaque on the Memphis Police Department building, and that one of them attacked an officer on guard duty, resulting in physical injury, followed by threats made toward an officer after being taken into custody. Željko Maršić, a member of the American Legion, confirmed the Secretary of Homeland Security Rank Ostojić's report that Pajčić had too much to drink, noting his blood alcohol level was measured at 2.7 per mille during the incident.

"If not even higher! You have to understand that after things like this happen, people start turning to alcohol more heavily. It's a normal reaction because the situation is just getting more and more tense," Maršić said.

Maršić claims it isn't true that Pajčić just tripped and fell yesterday. Contrary to the official police report, a member of the American Legion who witnessed the physical altercation is reportedly going to testify publicly. "He saw the officer on the opposite side of the street when he noticed Pajčić heading toward the plaque to break it. He ran over and, using all his weight—this guy is well over two hundred pounds—he slammed into Pajčić and knocked him against the wall, after which he fell to the floor and was seriously injured," according to the version held by the American Legion. Because of this, Maršić says this informal veteran group will be filing criminal charges against several people in the department. The American Legion believes the officer exceeded his authority yesterday, used excessive force, and that the police failed to provide medical assistance to the injured man.

Nobody is mentioning the gun or the threat of a gun to the head except for that one news site... meanwhile, the forum regulars are busy arguing that the injured guy was way over a 2.7 BAC.

Alright Scot, you might have given her a warning, but you really need to scroll through coppermarlin13's posts to see exactly what I'm talking about...

goldenowl73 said:It’s because she’s trolling. She trolls constantly. Even other people in this thread are calling her out for it if you just scroll through. And by the way, the official report the Secretary gave in Congress today doesn't mention anything about an officer being beaten—even though coppermarlin13 claims she "heard" he was being brutally struck. It actually describes a man who simply fell while trying to break up a scene while under the influence of a 2.7 BAC.

That's my two cents.

And of course, every single time coppermarlin13 gets cardboarded, she starts a whole new thread over at the Memphis Police Department subforum, pointing fingers and asking why everyone else escaped a penalty while she didn't.

Like Sam Green73 said, it's just pure political theater and sensationalism, much like what you'd see on CNN, except here it's being presented as absolute gospel truth.

YOU ARE LYING!

You have zero justification, so now you're resorting to calling it "trolling"!!!!!

Why didn't you apply that card to the actual offending post instead of hitting me with it?

On that specific subforum, I only engage with people I respect and whose opinions I value, so I have absolutely no reason to troll them!

You are quite simply lying through your teeth!

Besides, it's obvious you weren't even watching the news yesterday. You don't know a thing about what was actually reported; you're just cherry-picking today's statements from the Secretary to suit your narrative!

Don't make me drop links to yesterday's news just to bury you even deeper!

Look, you'd really benefit from taking a moment to think before you swing those moderator tools around. Take a few deep breaths, actually familiarize yourself with the topic you're supposed to be managing, and then maybe act.

I see my card has been revoked!

Oh, boy, goldenowl73, you're something else! 🙏

edit:

@ wiredangler5, thanks.

goldenowl73 said:The United States Attorney's Office in Memphis announced today that there is probable cause to believe both individuals committed crimes against property—specifically damaging someone else's belongings under Section 235, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Penal Code. On top of that, one of them is accused of assaulting an officer and making threats against two police officers under Section 315 and Section 139. Pajcic hasn't been interrogated yet because he’s currently in the hospital. The suspicion is that around 11:30 AM on November 12, 2013, the suspects used stones to smash the plaque featuring Latin and Cyrillic inscriptions on the Memphis Police Department building. One suspect allegedly attacked an officer on duty, causing physical injury, and then leveled verbal threats at an officer once they were brought into the station. Zeljko Marsic, a member of the American Legion, confirmed the Secretary of Homeland Security Rank Ostojic's claim that Pajcic had too much to drink, measuring a blood alcohol content of 2.7 per mille during the incident.

'If it wasn't more! You have to understand that after events like this, people start drinking more heavily. It's normal—the situation is just getting increasingly stressful,' Marsic said.

Marsic claims it's a lie that Pajcic just fell down on his own yesterday. Apparently, contrary to the police report, a member of the American Legion who witnessed the physical altercation is going to testify publicly. 'He saw the officer was on the opposite side of the street when he saw Pajcic about to smash the plaque. He ran over and, with all his weight—he's over 220 pounds—hit Pajcic and threw him against the wall, after which he fell to the floor and was seriously injured.' This is the version the American Legion is pushing, and because of it, Marsic says this informal veteran group will be filing criminal complaints against several people in the police force. The American Legion believes the officer overstepped his authority yesterday, used excessive force, and that the police failed to provide medical aid to the injured man.

Nobody is mentioning the gun or pointing a gun at a head except for that one news site... while the forum regulars keep saying the injured guy had way more than 2.7 per mille in his system.

Alright Scott, you gave her a warning, but if you actually look through coppermarlin13's posts, you'll see what I'm talking about...

Today, Secretary Ostojic stated that blood was spilled because of moonshine.
A ton of users here have reposted that statement.
So what now?
Hand out warnings to everyone, I guess.