Indiana deputy attorney general tweets: "Use live ammunition" on demonstrators

Mother Jones:
On Saturday night, when Mother Jones staffers tweeted a report that riot police might soon sweep demonstrators out of the Wisconsin capitol building--something that didn't end up happening--one Twitter user sent out a chilling public response: "Use live ammunition."

From my own Twitter account, I confronted the user, JCCentCom. He tweeted back that the demonstrators were "political enemies" and "thugs" who were "physically threatening legally elected officials." In response to such behavior, he said, "You're damned right I advocate deadly force." He later called me a "typical leftist," adding, "liberals hate police."

Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.


    1. Wait, aren’t liberals supposed to be in favor of Big Government, and thus in favor of police?

      I see what ya tried to do there….

      I think most people are fine with police, but police firing on innocent people not so much.

      Sorry to blow your mind.

  1. Man I hope I win the lottery soon. A private, isolated island really is looking like the best bet. There’s no hope for humanity.

    1. I’m sure he’ll be on Wingnut Welfare by the end of the week. Hell, he’s probably already editing videos for Brietbart.

  2. re: “Only later did we realize that JCCentCom was a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana.”

    Not for long. Yeesh, what a jackass.

  3. He has been fired. I sent an email tot he AG of Indiana and got this back.

    Thank you for your inquiry.

    Today the Indiana Attorney General’s Office announced that Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Cox is no longer employed by this agency.

    The Indiana Attorney General’s Office conducted a thorough and expeditious review after “Mother Jones” magazine today published an article attributing private Twitter postings and private blog postings to Cox.

    Civility and courtesy toward all members of the public are very important to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office. We respect individuals’ First Amendment right to express their personal views on private online forums, but as public servants we are held by the public to a higher standard, and we should strive for civility.

    If you have any additional questions or comments, please direct them to (317) 232-6310 or to

    1. Civility and courtesy toward all members of the public are very important to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office.

      Yes I believe it would be very courteous and civil to refrain from using live ammunition on peaceful protesters.

  4. “And he’s fired.”

    By a tweet no less,
    The idiot was done in by the very same technology that him and his kind fear and do not understand.

    The Luddites will fall

    1. yeah, well, you’re boing counterproductive. Try not to get the people around you beaten while you skulk away. Stay and take the beating any cop would be right to give you for saying that to his face.

      Have some self-respect, man.

      1. Really? You think he deserves to be beaten for exercising his rights to free speech?
        You do realize that it’s irrelevant whether what he says is popular or not, or tasteful or not, or even offensive or not?
        Saying it’s ever ok for a police officer to physically beat someone based on some words they’ve spoken is fucking absurd.
        You’re an asshole, and part of the problem.

        1. Um, yes, I am an asshole, correct. Hardly a point you scored there. Seems obvious.

          And I think the reality of it is that yes, anyone who says -to my face – that I should be shot while at work has a knuckle sandwich coming their way, from me. Were I a police officer I would be sure to be off duty, but it would absolutely be handed out. Threats are the mark of a coward.

          Were a police officer to punch in the face a protestor who was threatening them with bodily harm, and I saw this happen, I would actually laugh. out. loud.

          Were a police officer to punch in the face a protester who was not threatening – I would take the protestors side and work to see the officer arrested for assault.

          Freedom OF speech has this other side, responsibility FOR speech. Go ahead, threaten the police, best of luck with that.

          1. There’s a disconnect between force and threat in the two cases. If a protester were to punch a police officer who was threatening them with bodily harm, whose side would you take?

          2. I think you will find there is a connect between the police and your skull if you’re so massive an idiot as to threaten – to his face – an armed/armored officer.

            Really. Really. No stepping back and assessing the legality of everything. Really you would have it coming. Same as if you threatened a teamster while he unloaded his truck. Threats suck. You can be arrested for making them. Usually you just get a crack over the head, and that is how it should be.

            To answer your question: If I saw a protestor strike an officer, assuming their threat of force was justified and legal (as it can be, when you are an officer, in uniform, at work), I would take the police officers side. It’s their job. Let them do their job.

            I mean, if y’all really hate the cops that much why don’t you go get in their way all the time? Go ahead, pull in front of them in traffic – they haven’t cleared their itinerary with you after all.

    2. Nah man don’t go there, that’s being just as bad as him. :) Probably less likely to get you fired, though. (depending on what you do, I suppose!).

    3. a·gent pro·vo·ca·teur. n. 1. A person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act. More generally, the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action. 2. A troll.

    4. Nice try, commissioner.

      I’m fairly certain that anyone who would want running gun battles in American streets would be willing to use the word “fucking” on the internet.

  5. The demonstrators were “political enemies” and “thugs” who were “physically threatening legally elected officials.” In response to such behavior, he said, “You’re damned right I advocate deadly force.”

    Gadhafi would totally agree. And use live ammo as well.

  6. Let’s buy him a one way ticket to Libya. Apparently that’s the kind of government he would prefer to live under.

    1. Over-eager, over-enthusiastic, or striving over-mightily to impress (others, or even themselves); rather than to be quietly effective at their tasks – and perhaps thus un-noticed when promotions are discussed – or so they may fear.

      They’re trying too hard.

    2. They must be giving them really long probation periods to see what kind of insane crap comes out of their mouths.

    3. Virulent homophobe Andrew Shirvell seemed to get his job as the result of working on the Michigan AG’s campaign — it makes me wonder if the junior AG job is a patronage position. It certainly does seem to attract the most rabid conservative ideologues.

  7. And the Congressman from Massachusetts who advises to “get a little bloody” is still around. The guy in this post was dealt with fairly and quickly. That is admirable.

    1. Which one is that then?

      There is either a large difference between saying “fight, physically if you must, for your rights, against those who would fight physically to take them away from you” and saying “use live ammo against unarmed peaceful demonstrators”, or, there is no difference. Everyone makes their own call.

        1. re:”Not me though, ’cause we got Randy Quaid as one of our own now, eh?”

          He’s yours now! You touched him last! No givsies-backsies!

  8. Consider what would happen if riot police actually opened fire on a crowd of middle-class moms and dads out exercising their 1st Amendment right to peaceable assembly

    The repercussions would be … interesting.

    1. Ah, but it DID happen a century ago in factory towns and mining towns across the nation. They were striking for basic stuff, like a 40 hour work week.

      My friend, Renee, has a strong work ethic and is fairly conservative, but if she notices someone skipping a break they are entitled to, she reminds him/her that people died in the streets for that privilege.

  9. As someone who vehemently objects to the demonstrators, and supports the Governor, this @sshat Dpty. Atty. Genl. needs to (1) lose his job (2) be civilly prosecuted for wasting govt. resources and (3) be criminally prosecuted for threatening bodily harm.

    There is no excuse (even if someone is on the correct side of an issue) for stupidity.

  10. Or indeed perhaps they have simply been working too hard, and need some time off or at lighter duties.

  11. We’re supposed to be better than those guys in the Middle East. Let’s try to prove it just a little bit by, you know, not murdering citizens who are protesting because they want this country to be a better place.

    1. “We’re supposed to be better than them.” I don’t think I’ve believed this since I was in secondary school.

  12. Sorry, I’m from the UK. I remember the last AAG that got canned for being a moron, and now here’s another. Are they elected or appointed? I really can’t believe they’re elected….

    Now your average looney Congressperson has a few weapons you know about; wealth and influence.

  13. So, I guess it’s game on then.

    Since we have “political enemies” and “thugs” who are “physically threatening legal, peaceful protesters.” In response to such behavior, we should, “advocate deadly force.”

    I guess peaceful protest isn’t the kind they want. I was kinda hoping for an Egypt style peaceful overthrow, but I guess americans are just to violent.

    When the revolution happens, I’m going backpacking.

  14. You know, I can’t really comprehend why anyone would support Walker. He’s been outed as promoting a political attack on unions (people being able to charge what they want for the work they do, a right most conservatives insist everyone should have,) that has, in fact, nothing to do with any budgetary concerns. Right out the gate, it seems to me, there’s no grounds for support.

    But once you listen to the “punk’d” phone call, to say that you support Walker would be to say that you support an institution of corruption and aggression against the citizenry hardly different than the “use live ammo” message. So I’m not quite sure what anyone thinks they’re saying when they claim to support Walker but not the live ammo guy. He may have used violent rhetoric, but Walker was actually planning to use a form of corrupt aggression directly to undermine free speech. He’s at LEAST as bad, if not worse.

  15. “Civility and courtesy toward all members of the public are very important to the Indiana Attorney General’s Office.”

    Murdering unarmed civilians – uncivil and discourteous indeed! Glad it’s important to them…

    1. To be fair, this isn’t about murdering civilians, but talking about doing so. Which is uncivil and discourteous in the extreme, but not anything more until someone actually starts trying to put it into motion. The Attorney General’s Office deserves to be complimented for its reponse to the former so that we can feel safe from any chance of the latter.

      1. To be fair, this isn’t about murdering civilians, but talking about doing so. Which is uncivil and discourteous in the extreme, but not anything more until someone actually starts trying to put it into motion.

        You’ve never heard of an ‘inciting riot’ charge? There doesn’t have to be actual violence for that, you know.

  16. Shouldn’t a comment like this have gotten him a visit from the FBI or the Sreecret Service? Firing his ass is a good first step, but threats of violence usually have a stronger response. Did he get a ‘get out of jail free’ card by being a government employee?

    I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that he’s a Republican. Am I right or am I right?

    1. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that he’s a Republican. Am I right or am I right?

      Didn’t GW Bush fire all the liberal AG’s?

      1. Difference is between between state and federal. This is a state level asst AG.

        And I think Cochicuate is probably right.

      2. Bush had control over Federal AG. This guy was a State AG.

        Yes – he must be a Rep., because the point here is to keep score on ‘sides’, promote punditry, and have a false sense of smug superiority.

        Others asked, and as I understand it, people are AGs and prosecutors/defenders to gain experience, and most importantly, connections that benefit you out the wazoo when you go private.

  17. I’m a little perplexed about the former AAG’s non-apology. From the Linked Article:

    “I think, in this day and age, that tweet was not a good idea,” he said. “In terms of that language, I’m not going to use it anymore.”

    so wrong. that apology would have been appropriate if he had dropped an f-bomb, or called a dude Macaca. it seems a little off the mark for seriously endorsing the mass murder of peaceful protesters.

  18. They would have had to import police from somewhere else to do that. Madison police on duty couldn’t openly side with the demonstrators but they were very friendly with them and I saw plenty of off duty officers demonstrating there yesterday.

  19. I think it’s just about time to retire Godwin’s Law. When you’ve got a group of people who are constantly threatening to shoot anyone they disagree with, and who frequently carry out that threat, to the extent of shooting 9 year-old girls on a regular basis, you don’t need to compare them to anyone MORE evil than they have already proved themselves to be by their own words and actions. These are people who call professional torturers “heroes”; who bemoan the fact that oppressive dictators are being overthrown; who come right out and say that they want to increase poverty and illiteracy and disease among the great mass of humanity. If Mr. Godwin’s dictum is to have any meaning, any seriousness at all, it must be amended to reflect the utterly psychopathic nature of the Republican Party.

    1. 1) You’re saying that Loughner was a card carrying Republican.

      2) You’re saying that Republicans regularly shoot 9 year old girls.

      3) You’re saying that the Arizona massacre was worse than the holocaust.

      3 strikes and you’re out, my friend…

      1. “3 strikes and you’re out, my friend…”

        Good point, I forgot to mention the eliminationist rhetoric.

      2. “2) You’re saying that Republicans regularly shoot 9 year old girls.”

        Brisenia Flores.
        Christina Taylor-Green.

        Perhaps that’s not enough to make it “regularly.” What amount of dead 9 year-old girls would be enough to catch your attention?

  20. Well, seeing how the Republicans are the party that represents, amongst other constituencies, the violent authoritarians of our country..I think he was just doing his duty as a democratically elected representative.

    (are assistant AGs elected?)

  21. Most likely just another KOCHsucker. I am going to start calling these mofos that, in my best Swearengen impersonation voice. KOCHsuckers!


  22. “are assistant AGs elected?”

    No. The Attorneys General get elected and then the appoint the Assistant AGs.

  23. Did anybody see his interview? He says he “meant to be satirical”.

    It would be kind of a shame if this is like some third-rate Steven Colbert routine gone wrong.

    But the I suppose the greater sadness is just how close satire is coming to reality these days.

  24. Bloody hell america, perhaps you should all sit down and have a nice cup of tea eh? This is all getting a bit heated.

    Yours sincerely, the uk

    1. And in UK news, today police used peper spray on Cambridge students. I’d say it’s getting heated everywhere.

  25. zyodei: I think you’ve missed my point. It is precisely the fact that the Republicans are NOT Nazis that I wanted to highlight. I’ve met Nazis. Nazis are frightened little men who don’t understand how the world works, and who consequently lash out at anyone different from themselves, with the aim of proving that, no matter what indignities they’ve suffered, there’s still someone who’s worse off than them.

    Palin’s not Hitler. Beck isn’t Goebbels. But they’re doing a pretty good impression of what Pinochet and Somoza and Batista would look like if they had a lot of power in this society. How long did Hitler’s “1,000 Year Reich” last? 13 years? If the Republicans are successful now, and I see very little evidence that they won’t be, we’re looking at generations of torturers and usurers in power, with no opposition internally, and no one external to fight a world war to stop them.

    It would be great if we could say “this is one of those questions where reasonable people can disagree, and the important thing is to remain civil in our discourse.” But it’s not, and we can’t. It’s already too late.

    1. The only thing more absurd than your statements are the ones about Obama turning the US into a communist state.

Comments are closed.