Pages

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Dem: Charge Republican Who Took Down Anti-Cop Painting

Representative Lacy Clay (D-MO-1) wants Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA-50) to face “theft” charges for removing an anti-cop painting from the walls of the U.S. Capitol complex.

Breitbart News previously reported that the painting was hung in the Capitol complex after Clay chose it as a fitting representation of the August 9, 2014, shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. It depicts police officers as animals with tusks.

On January 6 Hunter removed the painting from the wall, saying, “I’ve seen the press [reporting on this painting] for about a week or so. … I’m in the Marine Corps. If you want it done, just call us.” Hunter then delivered the painting to Clay’s office and said, “Lacy can put it back up, I guess, if he wants to … but I’m allowed to take it down.”

Clay now wants “theft” charges against Hunter.

According to The Washington Post, Clay addressed the removal of the painting on Monday, saying that “his staff met Monday with members of the Capitol Police to press theft charges against Rep. Duncan D. Hunter.” Clay added, “He had no right to take that picture down, it’s thievery.”

More

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a clueless individual. Sounds like a cry baby teenager not getting his way. Really - this is main concern with his job? 'Thievery'. It wasn't stolen you jack ass. It is people like Clay that make you really hate the Gov...

Anonymous said...

Congressmen/women need to shape up or get ready to ship out come 2 years from now. Petty bitchin/moaning about paintings/personal self expressions is not proper representation of constituents.

Both so turn in their CONgress door keys immediately!

Anonymous said...

That painting isn't a proper representation either. Fake news, that Obama fell for.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please do a painting of rioters and put it up next to the anti cop painting and see who blinks first.

Anonymous said...

Legal Definition of theft
: larceny; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent Editor's note: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.

did he have consent 104?

Just like a lot of other folks, you have your moral compass upside down.

Anonymous said...

2:58 your reading comprehension is libtarded. He brought the paiting back to the scumbag who put it up how is that stealing

Anonymous said...

I saw the painting. Taking it down and returning it to the Owner is a form of protest, but not theft, since the item was returned back to its owner.

My problem is with the Law Enforcement "violence baiter" who is responsible for the ignorance shown here.

Anonymous said...

He didn't "take" it, he took it down and brought it to the owner's office.

Besides, what's the penalty for theft of an item worth less than $2.00, anyway?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
2:58 your reading comprehension is libtarded. He brought the paiting back to the scumbag who put it up how is that stealing

January 11, 2017 at 6:27 PM

well if you would shut your pie hole long enough to read what is right in front of you, you might just learn something, but I doubt it.

The "legal" definition of theft is included in the comment, and you still fail. It matters not what he did with it after he took it WITHOUT CONSENT. That is theft.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I saw the painting. Taking it down and returning it to the Owner is a form of protest, but not theft, since the item was returned back to its owner.

My problem is with the Law Enforcement "violence baiter" who is responsible for the ignorance shown here.


January 11, 2017 at 7:49 PM

Since the owner is the one who painted it, he did NOT return it to its owner.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
He didn't "take" it, he took it down and brought it to the owner's office.

Besides, what's the penalty for theft of an item worth less than $2.00, anyway?


January 11, 2017 at 9:43 PM

And the same goes for you. Theft is theft. Your 2 dollar assessment notwithstanding, the punishment would be the same for theft of anything of similar value.

You, people, are good for a laugh tho. You insist on basing comments and opinions with your emotions rather than whatever logic you may or may not possess. And even that is incorrect. The policeman is being portrayed as a wild boar, not a pig.

There is a good description of this painting out there. Joe has it but refuses to publish it for whatever reason.

Next time, take a deep breath and don't rush to judgment when you are incorrect right from the start.

And all this

Anonymous said...

My problem is with the Law Enforcement "violence baiter" who is responsible for the ignorance shown here.


January 11, 2017 at 7:49 PM

Who and what is a law enforcement violence baiter?

Anonymous said...

The painting “Untitled #1” is the work of St. Louis area High School Student, David Pulphus. This colorful piece of art displays the tragic incidents that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri which was sparked by the shooting death of Michael Brown in 2014. The painting was submitted to an annual art competition sponsored by 1st District of Missouri, U.S. Representative William Lacy Clay. The acrylic canvas painting won the contest, and as a result, it will be placed in the U.S. Capitol complex by Rep. Clay.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
2:58 your reading comprehension is libtarded. He brought the paiting back to the scumbag who put it up how is that stealing

January 11, 2017 at 6:27 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I saw the painting. Taking it down and returning it to the Owner is a form of protest, but not theft, since the item was returned back to its owner.

My problem is with the Law Enforcement "violence baiter" who is responsible for the ignorance shown here.


January 11, 2017 at 7:49 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
He didn't "take" it, he took it down and brought it to the owner's office.

Besides, what's the penalty for theft of an item worth less than $2.00, anyway?


January 11, 2017 at 9:43 PM

I see part of the problem. You folks did not read anything about this painting, or the contest. You just went along with the false narrative that someone else told you.

There is nothing wrong with admitting when you are wrong people. I have given you several opportunities to do just that and actually discover what this painting is about and represents.

The police Lt. did a really good job describing this painting. I think you would enjoy reading about it.