Alyssa, bootlicker applies to people who worship the state. Do I need to link you to Urban Dictionary, because your faux woke vocabulary is about as dim as the rest of your intellect. No surprise. You’re probably a high school dropout, given the quality of discourse and knowledge of how criminal justice works.

I kind of actually know a thing or two about this stuff. Your 12-year old dictionary version of harassment isn’t the same as the legal definition of harassment, which requires elements to be met. I invited you, at some point in one of these threads (maybe this one) to supply a statute. You don’t even know how to look one up which is why you won’t supply one.

The guy didn’t commit a crime. It’s that simple. The officer was wrong (but didn’t do anything to the level of a firing offense, given the more egregious misconduct that officers aren’t disciplined for (one recently kept her job after a DUI conviction where I live – go figure)).

We can’t just ignore the elements of a crime to assuage your feels. We can’t just redefine crimes because a new behavior is wrong. The conduct has to be criminal to justify a criminal conviction. You can try that guy in the court of public opinion all day long. But he should not be charged with a crime.

And, once again, I never said he was entitled to do what he did on the basis of freedom of speech. You and Marcos threw that in because you couldn’t keep various people’s comments straight. And that happens.

But you’d think you’d at least backpedal a little bit, rather than doubling down on the ignorance and calling me a bootlicker because I (pause and think about this for a second) openly disagree with what the state has done here.

This conversation has gone from being a reasonable discussion involving one informed and educated person (me) with a bunch of ignorant laypeople (you) to the intellectual equivalent of Mike Tyson boxing Stephen Hawking.