Secret Service Investigating Photo ....

[chefdennis]

Nothing like this never happened when george bush was in office...righhhhtt...

Your tax dollars at work protecting the idiot in the WH...

Secret Service Investigating Photo of Teens Holding Bullet Ridden Obama Shirt

Posted on January 27, 2012 at 5:17pm
by Madeleine Morgenstern
Secret Service Investigating Photo of Teens Holding Bullet-Ridden Obama Shirt | Video | TheBlaze.com

*open the link above to see the pictures

The Secret Service is investigating after a photo depicting a group of teenagers holding a bullet hole-ridden T-shirt with President Barack Obama‘s face on it was posted to an Arizona police officer’s Facebook account.

The photo shows seven young men, four of them holding weapons, posing with a T-shirt featuring the Obama “HOPE” image. The shirt is covered in what appear to be bullet holes. The photo was posted to Peoria Police Sgt. Pat Shearer’s Facebook page on Jan. 20 with the comment “Another trip to the ranch,” the New York Times reported.

“We’re aware of it, and we’re conducting the appropriate follow-up steps,” Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told the Times. He said individuals have a right to free speech, “but we certainly have a right to speak to individuals to see what their intent is.”

The Peoria Police Department is mounting its own probe into Shearer’s activities, Peoria police spokesman Jay Davies told local CBS affiliate KPHO-TV.

“We have a social media policy that addresses employee conduct with respect of the use of social media,” Davies told the station, which includes not “posting information regarding off-duty activity that may tend to bring an officer’s reputation into question.”


But Shearer told Phoenix ABC affiliate KNXV-TV he doesn’t see anything wrong with the photo.

“I don’t think that the shooting of that T-shirt is that big of a deal,” he told the station. “It was more of a political statement, it’s not like they were going to go out and shoot the president, no.”

The Peoria school district is investigating as well, working to identify the students involved, according to the Times.

Shearer has removed the photo from his Facebook page.

I may be mistaken, but shouldn't the title have used the word "Riddled" instead of "Ridden"???

 

[scottm4211]

They should be investigating Dennis catching a spelling mistake

 

[greg334]

It is their job to investigate this, it does not matter who the president is or who hates him.

 

[layoutshooter]

It is their job to investigate this, it does not matter who the president is or who hates him.

Why is it their job to investigate a shirt? Shooting up a shirt with the face of a president on it is not a crime. Assuming those kids really shot up a shirt they were just exercising their freedom of speech. You know, like burning our flag and things like that. There is no crime known as 'shirticide'.

 

[greg334]

Joe,

You know what operational protocols are?

 

[clcooper]

investigating the shirt is easier .then to investigate true crimes . we all want the real criminals to go free .because they are our friends

 

[Slo-Ride]

I may be mistaken, but shouldn't the title have used the word "Riddled" instead of "Ridden"???

Its a secret, The Secret Service will determine if we need to know more.
In the mean time it has been determined that they have a dead T-Shirt on their hands and will Spend Millions to figure out how it died.

 

[Turtle]

No, there is no crime as "shirtcide". But can you imagine the response if the Secret Service failed to investigate this, and one of the people in that photograph shoots at the President? To dismiss it without investigating it would be irresponsible. They investigate everything that is remotely a possible threat to any of their protectees. That's their job.

 

[layoutshooter]

It's just so funny. Who cares about 'what if's'? Nothing happened. There was no crime. What can they do? I can see it now.

Secret Service Person to shirt killers: " Were you going to kill the president?"

Shirt Killers to Secret Service Person: "Nope!''


End of questioning. Since no crime was committed there is little else they could do. Unless you want to ASSUME guilt or decide that this particular expression of "Free Speech", which is their right under our Constitution, was some how unacceptable.

We also must remember that all would be assassins are honest the exchange would sound more like this:

Secret Service Person to Would be assassin:"Were you planning on shooting the president?"

Would be Assassin to Secret Service Person: "Yes, I was planning on shooting that fascist pig."

In that case they could then investigate further.

 

[clcooper]

No, there is no crime as "shirtcide". But can you imagine the response if the Secret Service failed to investigate this, and one of the people in that photograph shoots at the President? To dismiss it without investigating it would be irresponsible. They investigate everything that is remotely a possible threat to any of their protectees. That's their job.

can you say that agian .

you say this about a shirt but not about a child .

 

[Turtle]

Who cares about 'what if's'?

Uhm, the Secret Service. Their entire job relating to personal protection is literally defined by 'what ifs'. Everything they do is based on a long list of 'what ifs'. That's their job.

 

[Turtle]

can you say that agian .

you say this about a shirt but not about a child .

Correct, since the thread isn't about a child, it's about a shirt.

 

[clcooper]

Correct, since the thread isn't about a child, it's about a shirt.

so there is a standard for shirts and a differant standard for children . so it is not ok to shoot a shirt but it is ok to abuse a child . it is ok to say it is their JOB investigate . but To dismiss it without investigating it would be irresponsible.

one tracked mind . just like a KKK meeting .

 

[layoutshooter]

Correct, since the thread isn't about a child, it's about a shirt.

A shirt 'murdered' in the prime of it's life.

 

[layoutshooter]

Uhm, the Secret Service. Their entire job relating to personal protection is literally defined by 'what ifs'. Everything they do is based on a long list of 'what ifs'. That's their job.

No, their entire job is not only personal protection. Secret Service has other functions, like investigating fake money.

Funny it is ok to investigate what if's if the presidents life is involved. No one has a problem with that, BUT, IF the government investigates a 'what if' of a possible terror attack people are upset at the intrusion. Is not the potential death of a citizen or multiple citizens as, or even more, important that a 'what if' involving a president? After all, he is only an employee of the People, it is the People that are important.

 

[Turtle]

so there is a standard for shirts and a differant standard for children . so it is not ok to shoot a shirt but it is ok to abuse a child . it is ok to say it is their JOB investigate . but To dismiss it without investigating it would be irresponsible.

one tracked mind . just like a KKK meeting .

I wasn't aware that the Secret Service investigated child abuse. Do they?

 

[scottm4211]

No, their entire job is not only personal protection. Secret Service has other functions, like investigating fake money.

Funny it is ok to investigate what if's if the presidents life is involved. No one has a problem with that, BUT, IF the government investigates a 'what if' of a possible terror attack people are upset at the intrusion. Is not the potential death of a citizen or multiple citizens as, or even more, important that a 'what if' involving a president? After all, he is only an employee of the People, it is the People that are important.

Using the logic in your original post, you made the argument that your previous career was unnecessary. You can't have it both ways.
It's like saying everyone who curses or flashes a nip since the Super Bowl "malfunction" should be fined, rather than the logical argument which would be to see it for the non event it was.

 

[layoutshooter]

Using the logic in your original post, you made the argument that your previous career was unnecessary. You can't have it both ways.
It's like saying everyone who curses or flashes a nip since the Super Bowl "malfunction" should be fined, rather than the logical argument which would be to see it for the non event it was.

I don't understand what you mean. I never protected the president. I protected, at least for the bulk of my career, against Soviet attacks. I don't see the comparison between the two.

I also don't understand your comparison to FCC rules and Secret Service actions.

 

[Turtle]

No, their entire job is not only personal protection. Secret Service has other functions, like investigating fake money.

I never said their only job is personal protection. Did you not read what I wrote? Here, I'll type slower... Their entire job relating to personal protection is literally defined by 'what ifs'. I mentioned nothing about their job in relation to anything else. I only mentioned their job as it relates to personal protection, because this thread is about that very thing, not about the other things they do.

Funny it is ok to investigate what if's if the presidents life is involved. No one has a problem with that, BUT, IF the government investigates a 'what if' of a possible terror attack people are upset at the intrusion. Is not the potential death of a citizen or multiple citizens as, or even more, important that a 'what if' involving a president? After all, he is only an employee of the People, it is the People that are important.

Wow, you are a walking, talking plethora of logical fallacies, aren't you? We're talking about the Secret Service and one particular aspect of their job, not about the government as a whole, much less about the government's investigations into possible terror attacks. Also, I don't know any particular outrage over the intrusiveness of an actual investigation of a 'what if' terror attack. In fact, I can't think of a single investigation of a possible terror attack where people complained of the intrusion of the investigation. Not one. Other than those who are the subject of the investigations of possible terrorist acts, most people are more than obliging in cooperating with such investigations.

 

[scottm4211]

I don't understand what you mean. I never protected the president. I protected, at least for the bulk of my career, against Soviet attacks. I don't see the comparison between the two.

I also don't understand your comparison to FCC rules and Secret Service actions.

You're the one who said "who cares about what ifs?". So why not apply that to all intelligence gathering.