The thin blue ego: head of police union menaces Tarantino

Forget boycotts and protests: the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police knew what he was doing when he warned Quentin Tarantino about a “surprise” at the hands of police who would wait until seizing the “right time and place” to “try to hurt” the filmmaker (who has lately criticized police shootings). Asked to clarify, Fraternal Order of Police executive director Jim Pasco said he wasn’t talking about physical violence, but didn’t rule out the other ways police can use the powers of their office to hurt people. I’ve got a post at Cato wondering where this sort of talk will lead. Meanwhile, Scott Shackford at Reason suspects that Pasco’s we-know-where-you-live hinting will end in an anticlimax, like bringing out an inflatable rat or something.


  • Appalling.

    And this points up another problem with the Abood regime. These are reprehensible comments, and every good cop ought to be ashamed of them. So why do good cops have to fund the union that employs this thug? I thought the right to boycott had deep deep constitutional roots in America.

    I’d love to see Kagan try to deal with that problem.

    • “So why do good cops have to fund the union that employs this thug?”

      There aren’t any genuinely good cops, or at least there are only a tiny handful of them at any one time.

      See in my opinion, a true good cop doesn’t just avoid committing misconduct himself, a true good cop would not tolerate other cops engaging in misconduct.

      Sure, a lot of them go in intending to be good cops, but they either get corrupted or they get driven off the force.

      The only reason for a good cop to be afraid of “snitching” on the bad cops is because they know that they are badly outnumbered by the bad cops.

  • It appears Jim Pasco is dull enough to not understand his threat gives legitimacy to Tarantino’s words.

    This is absolutely unacceptable. We have a threat given by a union boss under color of lawful authority basically because of butthurt. I don’t like Tarantino, I think his statements are a symptom of his mental confusion, but I will defend him on this. A police union chief making veiled threats against anyone’s free-speech rights has no place in the debate.

  • So Tarentino calls police murderers at a rally which called was supported by a group that wants to kill cops.

    The cops respond with equally stupid and ridiculous words.

    Isn’t it possible that we can say both sides of this are morons? We don’t have to say that one side is right and than means the other is wrong.

    Sitting in the comfort of my home, I am sure that I would not want to be hired by or work for a guy who called me and my fellow workers “murderers.” At the same time, I wouldn’t want to be a part of a group that makes what can be considered physical threats or threats that may result in physical harm.

    Idiots all.

    And neither of them – Tarentino or Pasco – deserve the support of anyone.

    • “A group that wants to kill cops?” What group is that? Since absolutely nobody takes threats to kill police officers lightly, don’t you think arrests would have been made by now?

    • The “pox on both their houses” is an understandable reaction–but subtle threats in the face of ignorant comments is orders of magnitude worse–even to the point of making what Tarantino said irrelevant.

      I’d love to see the left defend the trampling of associational rights caused by the union members having to keep funding this union.

  • Oh, hell, yes, Gitarcarver. Both sides were stupid. It was that threat that made this a really reprehensible act. Pasco could have responded without the menacing of Tarantino’s 1st Amendment rights. Now if any cop responds to Tarantino in a lawful, but negative manner, just what will it look like?

    Tarantino is mentally a child seeking attention, and got it. Pasco is a bully who wants to believe his influence extends beyond the law. I should say they deserve each other. However, I am disturbed that a union boss believes his influence reaches so far that he can cast a national target by police because of someone’s (inflammatory) free speech.

  • One reply to answer them all….

    mx: You may or may not remember the BlackLive Matter chant of “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” I know I took that as a threat against cops. Your opinion may differ.

    spo: I agree with you if the threats were about violence in either direction. But Pasco said, “”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.”

    I have no idea what that means. Could it be a boycott of Tarantino’s movies? Could it be the next time Taratino comes into town to film, the cops that are assigned voluntary security duty around the set suddenly call in sick that day costing Tarantino thousands of dollars a day? Can cops show up (in street clothes) on a set and bring bullhorns disrupting the shoot? Can cops allow a car to drive down a “closed street” in the middle of shooting and thereby ruin the shot?

    I don’t know the answers to these questions, but it seems realistic to me.

    I don’t want to see anyone hurt or threatened with physical violence. But to me, I am not sure that I see someone causing economic harm by exercising their freedoms as being a bad thing.

    Bill H. I am disturbed at Pasco’s comments as well. If anything, these two guys deserve each other. That being said, I am not sure that the people lose their right to free speech when they take on a certain profession. Cops have rights to free speech as well. (And I should put in the qualifier “away from the job” as we discuss this specific case)

    I am not sure if I see a duty for police to keep a area clear or quiet during a movie shoot if others want to make noise. Or maybe the police do have an inflatable rat that they move into every shot. I don’t know what is wrong with that. .

    I am a firm believer that the best response to speech is more speech. As long as people are not harmed, I don’t have a problem with the police exercising their rights to free speech as well.

    It doesn’t mean I support what they say or do anymore than I support Tarantino in what he has said and does.

    But I support their right to exercise their First Amendment rights to expose their idoicy and being a buttwipe to all. And that goes for both sides of this mess.