Liberty, Rights, and the Constitution 2

[tac airlifter]

https://danaloeschradio.com/

Gotta love the throat choke takedown for no reason at the end.

Edited October 2, 2013 by tac airlifter

[Tank]

https://danaloeschradio.com/

Gotta love the throat choke takedown for no reason at the end.

These people are just idiots. All they had to do was clear the overpass b/c they were causing a traffic hazard to other people and nothing would have happened but instead they decided to push their limits with the police and were arrested for it. As for the throat choke takedown at the end, he was refusing to cooperate and that is a standard takedown when the police are dealing with a person refusing to cooperate. I am agree with the police in this aspect and I would hope nothing comes from this.

[tac airlifter]

These people are just idiots. All they had to do was clear the overpass b/c they were causing a traffic hazard to other people and nothing would have happened but instead they decided to push their limits with the police and were arrested for it. As for the throat choke takedown at the end, he was refusing to cooperate and that is a standard takedown when the police are dealing with a person refusing to cooperate. I am agree with the police in this aspect and I would hope nothing comes from this.

They have the right to assembly on a public sidewalk. They offered to relocate and were told to go home. If 2 people with signs were really a traffic hazard, don't you think 6 police cars only exacerbated the supposed hazard? And labeling behavior "SOP" doesn't make it right. Do you really think that is an appropriate way for cops to deal with citizens? And what law did they break?

[17D_guy]

These people are just idiots. All they had to do was clear the overpass b/c they were causing a traffic hazard to other people and nothing would have happened but instead they decided to push their limits with the police and were arrested for it. As for the throat choke takedown at the end, he was refusing to cooperate and that is a standard takedown when the police are dealing with a person refusing to cooperate. I am agree with the police in this aspect and I would hope nothing comes from this.

Guess that freedom of assembly thing only applies when the cops want it to.

[Fuzz]

Thank god common sense prevailed

https://news.yahoo.com/exonerated-marines-restore-honor-bronze-star-recipient-demoted-210807994.html

[pawnman]

These people are just idiots. All they had to do was clear the overpass b/c they were causing a traffic hazard to other people and nothing would have happened but instead they decided to push their limits with the police and were arrested for it. As for the throat choke takedown at the end, he was refusing to cooperate and that is a standard takedown when the police are dealing with a person refusing to cooperate. I am agree with the police in this aspect and I would hope nothing comes from this.

So in your opinion, is there any public area people can congregate where they shouldn't just leave when the police show up?

[M2]

So in your opinion, is there any public area people can congregate where they shouldn't just leave when the police show up?

Yes, it's called Unlawful Assembly. Look up Adderley v. Florida (1966). The US Supreme Court has ruled that"[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." These individuals were blocking a pathway, therefore the police had every right to request they leave then take action when they refused, as it is trespassing at the point.

[Vertigo]

Yes, it's called Unlawful Assembly. Look up Adderley v. Florida (1966). The US Supreme Court has ruled that"[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." These individuals were blocking a pathway, therefore the police had every right to request they leave then take action when they refused, as it is trespassing at the point.

And if no one is using that pathway, which was evident in the video as the officer said they were slowing vehicle traffic not pedestrian traffic, then this would not apply.

I'm also pretty sure someone could walk around/through them. It didn't appear they were a large enough of a crowd or even that their intent was to prevent someone from using the pathway.

[M2]

If they were causing any disruption, it does apply.

[tac airlifter]

Yes, it's called Unlawful Assembly. Look up Adderley v. Florida (1966). The US Supreme Court has ruled that"[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." These individuals were blocking a pathway, therefore the police had every right to request they leave then take action when they refused, as it is trespassing at the point.

What pathway were they blocking exactly, since they weren't charged with that? I know if the cops want to fuck with us, they'll find a "legal" way to fuck with us; it's the reality of having thousands of laws no one can possibly keep track of. Besides, the protestors offered to relocate somewhere acceptable and were told "go home or be arrested."

And really man, resisting arrest for standing there with his hands out and not moving? And choking him out & dropping him to the ground? Appropriate?

[M2]

What pathway were they blocking exactly, since they weren't charged with that? I know if the cops want to fuck with us, they'll find a "legal" way to fuck with us; it's the reality of having thousands of laws no one can possibly keep track of. Besides, the protestors offered to relocate somewhere acceptable and were told "go home or be arrested."

And really man, resisting arrest for standing there with his hands out and not moving? And choking him out & dropping him to the ground? Appropriate?

The pathway they were on, plus the traffic on the street. They were asked to move, refused, then when told to they failed to obey the lawful direction of a law enforcement officer. At that point the officer has the right to detain the individual, even using the tactics used.

The bottom line is play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They were told to leave and didn't, therefore got what they deserved. Just because you disagree with the law doesn't give anyone the right to ignore it.

By the way, a similar protest here included two individuals legally carrying long arms. The local police also showed up and told them to vacate the overpass for the same reason. The individuals did and went on their merry way...

[Vertigo]

In other words, you're ok with a police state. Noted.

[M2]

In other words, you're ok with a police state. Noted.

They're just enforcing the laws your elected officials put in place. If you disagree, then use the democratic system to change them.

Plus, if you really think this makes the US a "police state," you really are playing up on the rhetoric, aren't you? Have you actualy ever been in a true "police state?" I doubt it if you're making this comparison, that is, unless you are only doing so for the "dramatic effect" of calling it that...

[pawnman]

Yes, it's called Unlawful Assembly. Look up Adderley v. Florida (1966). The US Supreme Court has ruled that"[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." These individuals were blocking a pathway, therefore the police had every right to request they leave then take action when they refused, as it is trespassing at the point.

So there is not a single area in America where the first ammendment right to freedom of assembly applies once the local police decide the folks are an inconvenience.

Interesting take.

[Vertigo]

They're just enforcing the laws your elected officials put in place. If you disagree, then use the democratic system to change them. Plus, if you really think this makes the US a "police state," you really are playing up on the rhetoric, aren't you? Have you actualy ever been in a true "police state?" I doubt it if you're making this comparison, that is, unless you are only doing so for the "dramatic effect" of calling it that...

No, they are taking an existing law (even if the protestors aren't violating it) and using that to justify their infringement on these people's rights. Who is the judge going to believe? The cop or the protestor? Even if the judge or DA decides the charges aren't warranted, ultimately the protest was stopped. The ends justifies the means? The cops don't want you protesting... they'll find an excuse to shut you down.

When citizens have to prove their innocence in order to exercise their Constitutional rights, what kind of nation does that make us? A free state or a police state?

Edited August 20, 2013 by Vertigo

[M2]

So there is not a single area in America where the first ammendment right to freedom of assembly applies once the local police decide the folks are an inconvenience.

Interesting take.

Try reading what I wrote. There are certain areas where it infringes on the rights of others, therefore it is not allowed. But I like how you blow it up to apply everywhere, just like the media...

No, they are taking an existing law (even if the protestors aren't violating it) and using that to justify their infringement on these people's rights. Who is the judge going to believe? The cop or the protestor? Even if the judge or DA decides the charges aren't warranted, ultimately the protest was stopped. The ends justifies the means? The cops don't want you protesting... they'll find an excuse to shut you down.

When citizens have to prove their innocence in order to exercise their Constitutional rights, what kind of nation does that make us? A free state or a police state?

How are they not violating it? It is clear they were causing a disruption, which is against the law. If they moved somewhere else where they weren't impeding on pedestrian/vehiclular traffic, then it wouldn't have been a problem.

And I wonder if the First Amendment rights of the Oklahoma rodeo clown who wore the Obama mask are being so adamantly defended? No, there are calls for criminal investigations in that case. Way to go, liberals!

[Vertigo]

Try reading what I wrote. There are certain areas where it infringes on the rights of others, therefore it is not allowed. But I like how you blow it up to apply everywhere, just like the media... How are they not violating it? It is clear they were causing a disruption, which is against the law. If they moved somewhere else where they weren't impeding on pedestrian/vehiclular traffic, then it wouldn't have been a problem. And I wonder if the First Amendment rights of the Oklahoma rodeo clown who wore the Obama mask are being so adamantly defended? No, there are calls for criminal investigations in that case. Way to go, liberals!

Clear? Hardly. I'd say the 6 cop cars in the middle of the road with lights on were more of a distraction.

The portestors offered to move to another area and were denied... so yes it would still have been a problem. The Government man demanded an action by the peon. Comply or get squashed.

Calls for criminal investigation is not the same as actually arresting a person. One persons rights are being violated, the other is idiots calling for his rights to be violated. If he is arrested, feel free to bring it up... you'll only be hurting your case that this is not a police state.

[DFRESH]

This may be the only time I've read Vertigo's post and agreed.

[Fuzz]

They weren't impeeding the walkway, there was plenty of room for someone to walk.

As for the signs creating a hazard, has the DOT started taking down all the highway traffic signs? Because holy shit, if a 3 foot poster the says "impeach Obama" is such a hazard, the 10 foot sign with all the streets and exits is even more of a hazard. Many thanks to the Missourri State Police for making me realize how lucky I am to not go careening out of control everytime I read a highway sign. What about those big flashing rest stop signs to? I mean shit they change colors and all?

[Darth]

The bottom line whether you are blocking access or not while exercising your right to free speech and right to assemble - if you refuse an order from the police, you can be arrested for interfering and refusal to obey a police officer. If the police, in their judgment think that you are causing distractions or making safety an issue, they have the ability to say "In my judgment, there was a hazard being created, I asked them to move and stop whatever they were doing. They refused to comply with my direction. I arrested them for failure to comply and for resisting arrest." Lots of power to the police. I think this video was posted before so my apologies. But standing in your front lawn and videoing the police doing something and they don't like it...you might get an all-night paid trip to the pokey. Right or wrong. Be sure to put it on your SF86 (although I cannot remember if it is only for convictions or includes arrests....)

Edit: Damn thing will not let me imbed a you tube video. If'n your interested google you tube woman arrested videotaping police from front yard.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Darth

[Spur38]

Curious to see where the ACLU is in these situations and if the protesters ever try to get city permits to demonstrate, not that they should need them for 1st Amendment justifications but just to play the game....

[Learjetter]

I think the ACLU is more interested in publicity than true defense of rights--I think they cherry-pick the cases/causes that they think will gain them the most publicity....and occasionally handle a controversial one (i.e. KKK in Sheboygan) so they can tout that their agenda is only about equal protection, etc etc.

Would love to see 100,000 conservatives join ACLU and elect a new governing board, then start championing amendment #2.

[pawnman]

Try reading what I wrote. There are certain areas where it infringes on the rights of others, therefore it is not allowed. But I like how you blow it up to apply everywhere, just like the media...

How are they not violating it? It is clear they were causing a disruption, which is against the law. If they moved somewhere else where they weren't impeding on pedestrian/vehiclular traffic, then it wouldn't have been a problem.

And I wonder if the First Amendment rights of the Oklahoma rodeo clown who wore the Obama mask are being so adamantly defended? No, there are calls for criminal investigations in that case. Way to go, liberals!

I did. You wrote that anyone who diobeys a lawful order from a cop deserves a choke-slam. At least, that's what I took from it. You also maintain that telling people to disperse from public property is a lawful order. So again, where can people gather that the local police department does not have the legal right to choke-slam whoever they want for not moving? Is there anywhere protesters have a legal right to be, or must all crowds disperse as soon as the local cops show up?

[El-Fist]

I did. You wrote that anyone who diobeys a lawful order from a cop deserves a choke-slam. At least, that's what I took from it. You also maintain that telling people to disperse from public property is a lawful order. So again, where can people gather that the local police department does not have the legal right to choke-slam whoever they want for not moving? Is there anywhere protesters have a legal right to be, or must all crowds disperse as soon as the local cops show up?

I think the cops were very professional, and gave these protesters more than ample opportunity to disperse and take the demonstration elsewhere. They were disrupting the flow of traffic, infringing on the free movement of other citizens. They don't have the right to do this. Most demonstrations also require a permit. I'm not sure if they had one or not, but I doubt it. This increasing movement of "curbside lawyers" thinking they are experts on their constitutional rights gets old. Are there times when cops overstep their line? Of course, but this isn't an example of that.

You seem to suggest that it is wrong when someone disobeys a lawful order from a cop to get "choke slammed." What is the alternative? (In my opinion that wasn't a "choke slam," nor an excessive use of force.) Should the cop just say "sure" and leave when someone isn't complying with lawful orders or requests? Hell no. They need to establish and maintain control of the situation. The cops don't have all day to sit around and debate with some curbside lawyer about what their rights are. That isn't their job. Their job is to maintain peace and order. Either you disperse as requested, or refuse to do so and go to jail and let the courts determine what your rights were in that particular situation.

The majority of these curbside lawyers don't know shit about what their rights actually are.

[tac airlifter]

I think the cops were very professional, and gave these protesters more than ample opportunity to disperse and take the demonstration elsewhere. They were disrupting the flow of traffic, infringing on the free movement of other citizens. They don't have the right to do this. Most demonstrations also require a permit. I'm not sure if they had one or not, but I doubt it.

Why do you think they were disrupting the flow of traffic? Seems to be an assumption on your part. You're also willful ignoring the role the police played in impeding the flow of traffic. Also 100% incorrect if you think the demonstrators were given ample time to go elsewhere; they specifically asked to relocate to a non-disruptive area and were told to go home. That's my issue here: they were basically told there was no option to protest. I don't even want to discus the whole idea of free people asking for a permit to exercise rights.

This is one of those agree to disagree things since different folks view the same events but reach different conclusions. I posted this because for some of us, "SOP" behavior from police is a total WTF regardless of political affiliation.