If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Care2)   Tampa jails releasing criminals into the community in order to make cells available for those who might dare protest the GOP convention   (care2.com) divider line 534
    More: Asinine, RNC, Tampa, GOP, lethal, ABC Action News, political action, political convention, COINTELPRO  
•       •       •

7467 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2012 at 6:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



534 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-27 07:48:45 AM

liam76: Magruda: The highest court in the land has already ruled on this. You don't know this yet are talking like you are informed on this subject. Democracy does not mean that your ignorance is just as important as my knowledge

Yes, and they have consistently supported time, place, manner restrictions.

I woudl love for you to find me one case where an otherwise illegal action has been deemed "legal" because it was a protest. Or better yet picture a system where that was the case, and authorities always respected that rule (an illegal action becomes legal whenit is a protest). What woudl stop everyone from breaking the law and claiming it was a protest?


http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/research_CourtCases_RightT oPeaceableAssem.php

Shall I continue?
 
2012-08-27 07:53:20 AM

Magruda: You are taking a side here, the cops say one thing the protesters say another and you believe the cops. Not to mention video evidence that supports the protesters.


The protestes at UC davis admit to linking arms and encirclingt he police, and shcntingt hat they won't move until the police let their peopel go. The OWS protestors admit they occupied a park. I have seen plenty of videos of them blocking streets without permits.

Every tea party protest I have seen had groups get permission before hand.

I am not "taking sides" I am pointing out known facts. In soem cases the police may have used more force than needed, but OWS set up a situation where force was required. It wasn't related tot he message.

Magruda: When you look at history it's hard not to believe the protesters


When you look at the facts it is impossible to believe OWS and tea party used the same tactics.


gimmegimme: I think you're forgetting the struggle that Tubby McPepperSpray has gone through.


His only mistake, in my book, was spraying the protestors too close (which the manufacturers of the spray said not to do).

You have a large group of protestors actively resisting you and you are outnumbered. If they tried to go in and arrest each one, the would run out of police to control those that had been arrested, it could cause it to escalate, and there is a good chance that someoen whould get seriously hurt. You pepperspray them and they will move, and nobody is going to get seriously hurt.
 
2012-08-27 08:04:16 AM

Magruda: liam76: Magruda: The highest court in the land has already ruled on this. You don't know this yet are talking like you are informed on this subject. Democracy does not mean that your ignorance is just as important as my knowledge

Yes, and they have consistently supported time, place, manner restrictions.

I woudl love for you to find me one case where an otherwise illegal action has been deemed "legal" because it was a protest. Or better yet picture a system where that was the case, and authorities always respected that rule (an illegal action becomes legal whenit is a protest). What woudl stop everyone from breaking the law and claiming it was a protest?

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/jun/20/tdmain01-charges-may-b e -dropped-in-abortion-rights-ar-1999966/

That was actually quite easy, surprised you could not do that for yourself.


Charges dropped isn't an illegal act being deemed legal because it is a protest. Charges get dropped allt he time because of poor shot to win, lack of evidence, or even not being worht the time to prosecute.

Magruda: http://www.illinoisfirstamendmentcenter.com/research_CourtCases_Right T oPeaceableAssem.php

Shall I continue


You can continue to post links that don't back you up all day, but it doesn't really solve anything. Point to a specific case where an action that was illegal became legal because it was done as a protest.

You listed a series of court cases that don't do that.

Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization-said a ban on political meeting was illegal.

United States v. Cruikshank - Overuled the enforcement Act

De Jonge v. Oregon - Said they couldn't arrest him because his rally was for the communist party

How about shotgunning random civil rights cases you try and fine one that fits the question.

Or better yet, think about how a system liek that could possible work. If an illegal action becomes legal whenit is a protest, what woudl stop everyone from breaking the law and claiming it was a protest?
 
2012-08-27 08:18:06 AM

liam76: Magruda: You are taking a side here, the cops say one thing the protesters say another and you believe the cops. Not to mention video evidence that supports the protesters.

The protestes at UC davis admit to linking arms and encirclingt he police, and shcntingt hat they won't move until the police let their peopel go. The OWS protestors admit they occupied a park. I have seen plenty of videos of them blocking streets without permits.

Every tea party protest I have seen had groups get permission before hand.

I am not "taking sides" I am pointing out known facts. In soem cases the police may have used more force than needed, but OWS set up a situation where force was required. It wasn't related tot he message.

Magruda: When you look at history it's hard not to believe the protesters

When you look at the facts it is impossible to believe OWS and tea party used the same tactics.


gimmegimme: I think you're forgetting the struggle that Tubby McPepperSpray has gone through.

His only mistake, in my book, was spraying the protestors too close (which the manufacturers of the spray said not to do).

You have a large group of protestors actively resisting you and you are outnumbered. If they tried to go in and arrest each one, the would run out of police to control those that had been arrested, it could cause it to escalate, and there is a good chance that someoen whould get seriously hurt. You pepperspray them and they will move, and nobody is going to get seriously hurt.


How in the world do you consider "sitting on a sidewalk with arms locked" to be "active resistance"? It seems pretty passive to me. Have you seen the footage?
 
2012-08-27 08:36:21 AM

gimmegimme: How in the world do you consider "sitting on a sidewalk with arms locked" to be "active resistance"? It seems pretty passive to me. Have you seen the footage?


Two reasons.

They weren't "just sitting on the sidewalk" they encircled the police. That was taking an action to prevent the cops from moving the people they arrested.

By locking arms they were resiting the cops from pulling them out of the way.

Both of those make it "active" in my book.

I have seent he footgae, did you? Do you recall what they were chanting? Is making demands after encircling people indicative of a passive group to you?
 
2012-08-27 08:37:26 AM

liam76: gimmegimme: How in the world do you consider "sitting on a sidewalk with arms locked" to be "active resistance"? It seems pretty passive to me. Have you seen the footage?

Two reasons.

They weren't "just sitting on the sidewalk" they encircled the police. That was taking an action to prevent the cops from moving the people they arrested.

By locking arms they were resiting the cops from pulling them out of the way.

Both of those make it "active" in my book.

I have seent he footgae, did you? Do you recall what they were chanting? Is making demands after encircling people indicative of a passive group to you?


People like you were wrong in the 1950s and you are wrong now.
 
2012-08-27 08:41:16 AM

gimmegimme: People like you were wrong in the 1950s and you are wrong now


Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested?


People like you react with their gut histrionically against anything the police do, and instead of being able to intelligently discuss police actions, and label anyone who can as being in the same lot as anti-civil rights protestors.
 
2012-08-27 08:59:47 AM

liam76: gimmegimme: People like you were wrong in the 1950s and you are wrong now

Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested?


People like you react with their gut histrionically against anything the police do, and instead of being able to intelligently discuss police actions, and label anyone who can as being in the same lot as anti-civil rights protestors.


Look at this active resistance! This jerk won't even allow the fabric of his sweater to tear away from his body:

upload.wikimedia.org

UGH! More active resistance! Just think of how many people could die because those protesters are occupying one-fifth of the sidewalk. (Until the jet of water pushes them into the street.)

blog.chron.com

It's so un-American for those assholes to protest the ills of society. Thomas Paine would NEVER have written any political screeds after being told not to by the official government.
 
2012-08-27 09:16:51 AM

gimmegimme: Look at this active resistance! This jerk won't even allow the fabric of his sweater to tear away from his body


Did I say that was active resistance? No.

In fact I laid out specific reasons why I said what they did at UC Davis was active resistance, and none of those apply here.

So the only question is are you dishonest or stupid for making these comparisons?

gimmegimme: It's so un-American for those assholes to protest the ills of society


Want to point out where I said it is un-American to protest? Or maybe admit, once again, you are being dishonest or stupid?
 
2012-08-27 09:18:03 AM

liam76: gimmegimme: People like you were wrong in the 1950s and you are wrong now

Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested?


People like you react with their gut histrionically against anything the police do, and instead of being able to intelligently discuss police actions, and label anyone who can as being in the same lot as anti-civil rights protestors.


Point to one instance were OWS encircled and threatened police.
 
2012-08-27 09:31:05 AM

Magruda: liam76: gimmegimme: People like you were wrong in the 1950s and you are wrong now

Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested?


People like you react with their gut histrionically against anything the police do, and instead of being able to intelligently discuss police actions, and label anyone who can as being in the same lot as anti-civil rights protestors.

Point to one instance were OWS encircled and threatened police.


Point to one instance where I said "threaten"?

The OPWS at UC davis linked arms and demanded the release of peopel police had arrested.

"The whole point is to try to get people released who they arrested,"

Earlier, UC Davis spokeswoman Claudia Morain said police used pepper spray after protesters encircled them and blocked them from leaving.

The watching crowd began shouting chants of "Shame on you" and "Let them go," while dozens of students recorded the encounter on cell phone cameras.

Or you could just watch the video.
 
2012-08-27 09:36:21 AM

liam76: Magruda: liam76: gimmegimme: People like you were wrong in the 1950s and you are wrong now

Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested?


People like you react with their gut histrionically against anything the police do, and instead of being able to intelligently discuss police actions, and label anyone who can as being in the same lot as anti-civil rights protestors.

Point to one instance were OWS encircled and threatened police.

Point to one instance where I said "threaten"?

The OPWS at UC davis linked arms and demanded the release of peopel police had arrested.

"The whole point is to try to get people released who they arrested,"

Earlier, UC Davis spokeswoman Claudia Morain said police used pepper spray after protesters encircled them and blocked them from leaving.

The watching crowd began shouting chants of "Shame on you" and "Let them go," while dozens of students recorded the encounter on cell phone cameras.

Or you could just watch the video.


OMG....the crowd CHANTED? I hope the cops' riot gear was chant-proof.

We get it. You don't care about the Constitution or the founding principles of this country.
 
2012-08-27 09:50:12 AM

gimmegimme: OMG....the crowd CHANTED? I hope the cops' riot gear was chant-proof.


I don't care that they chanted, I care that they made demands while actively trying to prevent the police from leaving with prisoners.

This is pretty clear if you aren't pants on the head retarted, or dishonest. Which is it?


gimmegimme: We get it. You don't care about the Constitution or the founding principles of this country


I get it. You don't understand what "peaceable" means, nor can you grasp a few hundred years of case law supporting time, place manner restrictions on protests and when confronted with someone who tries to help you out with yoru glaring ignorance you lie or play dumb about their position.

Have fun with that.
 
2012-08-27 09:59:09 AM

liam76: gimmegimme: OMG....the crowd CHANTED? I hope the cops' riot gear was chant-proof.

I don't care that they chanted, I care that they made demands while actively trying to prevent the police from leaving with prisoners.

This is pretty clear if you aren't pants on the head retarted, or dishonest. Which is it?


gimmegimme: We get it. You don't care about the Constitution or the founding principles of this country

I get it. You don't understand what "peaceable" means, nor can you grasp a few hundred years of case law supporting time, place manner restrictions on protests and when confronted with someone who tries to help you out with yoru glaring ignorance you lie or play dumb about their position.

Have fun with that.


When you read Fahrenheit 451, do you root for the Firemen?
 
2012-08-27 10:05:26 AM

gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: OMG....the crowd CHANTED? I hope the cops' riot gear was chant-proof.

I don't care that they chanted, I care that they made demands while actively trying to prevent the police from leaving with prisoners.

This is pretty clear if you aren't pants on the head retarted, or dishonest. Which is it?


gimmegimme: We get it. You don't care about the Constitution or the founding principles of this country

I get it. You don't understand what "peaceable" means, nor can you grasp a few hundred years of case law supporting time, place manner restrictions on protests and when confronted with someone who tries to help you out with yoru glaring ignorance you lie or play dumb about their position.

Have fun with that.

When you read Fahrenheit 451, do you root for the Firemen?


No, because unlike you I comprehend what I read instead of pulling BS ideas out of my ass that have nothing to do with what I read, like you have been doing in this thread, and apparently throughout your life when it comes to constitutional rights and OWS protests.
 
2012-08-27 10:12:36 AM

liam76: gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: OMG....the crowd CHANTED? I hope the cops' riot gear was chant-proof.

I don't care that they chanted, I care that they made demands while actively trying to prevent the police from leaving with prisoners.

This is pretty clear if you aren't pants on the head retarted, or dishonest. Which is it?


gimmegimme: We get it. You don't care about the Constitution or the founding principles of this country

I get it. You don't understand what "peaceable" means, nor can you grasp a few hundred years of case law supporting time, place manner restrictions on protests and when confronted with someone who tries to help you out with yoru glaring ignorance you lie or play dumb about their position.

Have fun with that.

When you read Fahrenheit 451, do you root for the Firemen?

No, because unlike you I comprehend what I read instead of pulling BS ideas out of my ass that have nothing to do with what I read, like you have been doing in this thread, and apparently throughout your life when it comes to constitutional rights and OWS protests.


By your flawed logic, Montag is the villain of the story because he protests in such a manner that violates the law and compromises public safety as delineated by the government.
 
2012-08-27 10:24:59 AM

gimmegimme: By your flawed logic, Montag is the villain of the story because he protests in such a manner that violates the law and compromises public safety as delineated by the government


Point out where I said breaking the law makes you a villian.

You are once again being either dishonest or painfully stupid.
 
2012-08-27 10:27:42 AM

liam76: gimmegimme: By your flawed logic, Montag is the villain of the story because he protests in such a manner that violates the law and compromises public safety as delineated by the government

Point out where I said breaking the law makes you a villian.

You are once again being either dishonest or painfully stupid.


You're lucky the Constitution protects repeated name-calling.
 
2012-08-27 10:48:00 AM

gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: By your flawed logic, Montag is the villain of the story because he protests in such a manner that violates the law and compromises public safety as delineated by the government

Point out where I said breaking the law makes you a villian.

You are once again being either dishonest or painfully stupid.

You're lucky the Constitution protects repeated name-calling.


If you have another reason you continually assign viewpoints to me that are not supported by what I say (and in some cases directly contradict what I say) I would love to hear it, but unless you can come up with soemthing then I am pretty comfortable with dumb or dishonest being the truth, and not "name calling".
 
2012-08-27 11:18:51 AM

liam76: gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: By your flawed logic, Montag is the villain of the story because he protests in such a manner that violates the law and compromises public safety as delineated by the government

Point out where I said breaking the law makes you a villian.

You are once again being either dishonest or painfully stupid.

You're lucky the Constitution protects repeated name-calling.

If you have another reason you continually assign viewpoints to me that are not supported by what I say (and in some cases directly contradict what I say) I would love to hear it, but unless you can come up with soemthing then I am pretty comfortable with dumb or dishonest being the truth, and not "name calling".


Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand the real meaning of what you're saying.
 
2012-08-27 12:14:58 PM

gimmegimme: Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand the real meaning of what you're saying


When I ask "Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested" and you respond with pictures of civil rights marchers it is pretty clear the problem is your stupidity/dishonesty not my comprehension.
 
2012-08-27 12:37:05 PM

liam76: gimmegimme: Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand the real meaning of what you're saying

When I ask "Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested" and you respond with pictures of civil rights marchers it is pretty clear the problem is your stupidity/dishonesty not my comprehension.


No, I was ignoring most of your stupid questions. But if you really want an answer, here you are:

Q: "Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested"

A: CIVIL FARKING RIGHTS MARCHERS.
 
2012-08-27 12:50:03 PM

Magruda: This coming from the guy who dismisses cointelpro because i linked to it from wiki


I said Wikipedia is not authoritative. Encyclopedia Britannica, The NYT, Webster's Dictionary. Those are authoritateive because they have authors recognized in their field and editors to vet the authors. Wikipedia is not by design authoritative.

Simply because you choose poor sources does not mean I don't understand your point. I just think you are a simpleton.
 
2012-08-27 12:54:44 PM

gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand the real meaning of what you're saying

When I ask "Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested" and you respond with pictures of civil rights marchers it is pretty clear the problem is your stupidity/dishonesty not my comprehension.

No, I was ignoring most of your stupid questions.


When I pose a question, and you reply while quoting it with pictures, that is a response.


gimmegimme: But if you really want an answer, here you are:

Q: "Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested"

A: CIVIL FARKING RIGHTS MARCHERS


I already had an answer. What world do you live in where saying "CIVIL FARKING RIGHTS MARCHERS" is different than posting pictures of civil rights marchers? Are you really this stupid?

I recall when Rosa Parks had her buddies encircled the cops and refused to move until they let her go, when freedom riders got together in a mob and refused to allow police to take away people they arrested, and when lunch counter sit-ins had their back-up surround restaurant until police decided not to arrest them, oh wait that never happened, you really are that farking stupid. I feel; bad for the handler that has to water you and type this for you becasue you are obviously too stupid to perform those acts on your own.

You have just earend yourself a favorite. "MLK and his buddies tried to force the police not to arrest people by forming human chains and not letting police cross with prisoners" is a bit too long so I will probably just go with "moron".
 
2012-08-27 12:59:19 PM

liam76: gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: Perhaps the problem is that you don't understand the real meaning of what you're saying

When I ask "Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested" and you respond with pictures of civil rights marchers it is pretty clear the problem is your stupidity/dishonesty not my comprehension.

No, I was ignoring most of your stupid questions.

When I pose a question, and you reply while quoting it with pictures, that is a response.


gimmegimme: But if you really want an answer, here you are:

Q: "Who in the 1950's encircled police and made demands before they would allow them to pass with people they arrested"

A: CIVIL FARKING RIGHTS MARCHERS

I already had an answer. What world do you live in where saying "CIVIL FARKING RIGHTS MARCHERS" is different than posting pictures of civil rights marchers? Are you really this stupid?

I recall when Rosa Parks had her buddies encircled the cops and refused to move until they let her go, when freedom riders got together in a mob and refused to allow police to take away people they arrested, and when lunch counter sit-ins had their back-up surround restaurant until police decided not to arrest them, oh wait that never happened, you really are that farking stupid. I feel; bad for the handler that has to water you and type this for you becasue you are obviously too stupid to perform those acts on your own.

You have just earend yourself a favorite. "MLK and his buddies tried to force the police not to arrest people by forming human chains and not letting police cross with prisoners" is a bit too long so I will probably just go with "moron".


I have you farkied as "unable to look at videos and see what happens in them...will probably develop these skills in tenth grade."
 
2012-08-27 01:04:00 PM

gimmegimme: I have you farkied as "unable to look at videos and see what happens in them...will probably develop these skills in tenth grade"


OK sport Have fun pretending that the videos don't show them surrounding the police and linking arms. And that the protestors themselves were lying about saying that is exactly what they were doing.

/now you aren't just a moron, but moron and liar.
 
2012-08-27 01:16:45 PM

liam76: gimmegimme: I have you farkied as "unable to look at videos and see what happens in them...will probably develop these skills in tenth grade"

OK sport Have fun pretending that the videos don't show them surrounding the police and linking arms. And that the protestors themselves were lying about saying that is exactly what they were doing.

/now you aren't just a moron, but moron and liar.


No, you're completely right. Officer Cantseehisdick was in a life-or-death situation and was completely surrounded with no way out. He would have been totally justified in shooting a couple of the damn hippies.
 
2012-08-27 01:19:25 PM

gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: I have you farkied as "unable to look at videos and see what happens in them...will probably develop these skills in tenth grade"

OK sport Have fun pretending that the videos don't show them surrounding the police and linking arms. And that the protestors themselves were lying about saying that is exactly what they were doing.

/now you aren't just a moron, but moron and liar.

No, you're completely right. Officer Cantseehisdick was in a life-or-death situation and was completely surrounded with no way out. He would have been totally justified in shooting a couple of the damn hippies.


"surrounding the police and linking arms" = "life-or-death situation"

This is why gimmegimme is my new favorite Fark moron!
 
2012-08-27 01:23:58 PM

liam76: gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: I have you farkied as "unable to look at videos and see what happens in them...will probably develop these skills in tenth grade"

OK sport Have fun pretending that the videos don't show them surrounding the police and linking arms. And that the protestors themselves were lying about saying that is exactly what they were doing.

/now you aren't just a moron, but moron and liar.

No, you're completely right. Officer Cantseehisdick was in a life-or-death situation and was completely surrounded with no way out. He would have been totally justified in shooting a couple of the damn hippies.

"surrounding the police and linking arms" = "life-or-death situation"

This is why gimmegimme is my new favorite Fark moron!


Dude, you're the one justifying his actions. You can be my second-favorite Fark fascist.
 
2012-08-27 01:35:36 PM

gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: liam76: gimmegimme: I have you farkied as "unable to look at videos and see what happens in them...will probably develop these skills in tenth grade"

OK sport Have fun pretending that the videos don't show them surrounding the police and linking arms. And that the protestors themselves were lying about saying that is exactly what they were doing.

/now you aren't just a moron, but moron and liar.

No, you're completely right. Officer Cantseehisdick was in a life-or-death situation and was completely surrounded with no way out. He would have been totally justified in shooting a couple of the damn hippies.

"surrounding the police and linking arms" = "life-or-death situation"

This is why gimmegimme is my new favorite Fark moron!

Dude, you're the one justifying his actions. You can be my second-favorite Fark fascist.


I did justify them and you have demonstrated multiple times in this thread you are too stupid/dishonest to discuss or understand those implications. Labeling anyone who has ideas you are too stupid/dishonest to discuss or understand a facist is going to get you very far in life kiddo.
 
2012-08-27 02:37:57 PM

gimmegimme: You can be my second-favorite Fark fascist.


Can I be the first? I even have a bundle of sticks.
 
2012-08-27 03:43:28 PM
Can someone post the link to the video everyone claims to have watched?

I'm watching the one at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4406KJQMc

It looks like the police are surrounded but no one interferes with their coming or going. I don't see any of the police looking around like they are scared. I don't see any arm linking ourside of the students on the ground.

The situation escalates to danger after the police pepper-spray the students. The increased intensity cannot be used as an excuse for the pepper spraying.

If there is a video I have missed, please let me know.
 
2012-08-27 03:48:09 PM

feckingmorons: Simply because you choose poor sources does not mean I don't understand your point.


Then it up on those sources. And I think you are an idiot for not even knowing of it existed.
 
2012-08-27 05:26:01 PM

rdalton: I'm watching the one at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4406KJQMc

It looks like the police are surrounded but no one interferes with their coming or going. I don't see any of the police looking around like they are scared. I don't see any arm linking ourside of the students on the ground.



If you surround someone, you are interfering with their coming and going.

The students on the ground have them surrounded.

None of this is debated by the protestors themselves who were interviewed afterwards.

Police don't have to "look scared" to use pepperspray.

rdalton: The situation escalates to danger after the police pepper-spray the students.


No it escalates to danger after students surround police linked arms and refuse to allow them to pass with people they lawfully arrested. At that point there was no way the police could have done their job and not used force.

You can argue that you think it is less likely people would have been hurt by doing it the old fashioned way, but physically wrestling someone away could have easily lead to a broken bone and given that the bigger crown (those not linking arms) were supportive it could have made it worse and there was no way to stop more people from joining in.
 
2012-08-27 06:00:15 PM

liam76: No it escalates to danger after students surround police linked arms and refuse to allow them to pass with people they lawfully arrested. At that point there was no way the police could have done their job and not used force.


Can you point to one case in which the police overstepped their bounds in recent history? I just want to know what kind of bias we are dealing with here.
 
2012-08-27 06:11:41 PM

Magruda: feckingmorons: Simply because you choose poor sources does not mean I don't understand your point.

Then it up on those sources. And I think you are an idiot for not even knowing of it existed.


It is one of the tags on the article, we all know about it. You want to think there is some grand conspiracy now to keep the OWS and others of their ilk down, and that simply is not so. It is just that nobody actually cares what they have to say. We're all to busy going to work and making a living to listen to a bunch of dirty whingers camping in a park spout off about BOA being Satan.
 
2012-08-27 06:30:29 PM

feckingmorons: It is just that nobody actually cares what they have to say. We're all to busy going to work and making a living to listen to a bunch of dirty whingers camping in a park spout off about BOA being Satan.


Yes, keep staring at your digital watch. I doesn't do to learn things or know stuff.
 
2012-08-27 06:45:05 PM

Magruda: feckingmorons: It is just that nobody actually cares what they have to say. We're all to busy going to work and making a living to listen to a bunch of dirty whingers camping in a park spout off about BOA being Satan.

Yes, keep staring at your digital watch. I doesn't do to learn things or know stuff.


Is English your first language?
 
2012-08-27 07:37:52 PM

Magruda: liam76: No it escalates to danger after students surround police linked arms and refuse to allow them to pass with people they lawfully arrested. At that point there was no way the police could have done their job and not used force.

Can you point to one case in which the police overstepped their bounds in recent history? I just want to know what kind of bias we are dealing with here.


Accusations of bias from the guy who was arguing earlier that OWS at UC Davis didn't encircle police, that is a bit rich.

There are a number of cases that I think the police overstepped or outright ran past their bounds, however I don't really see the point in explaining it to you unless you you want an honest exchange.

Given how you never answered my question about court cases where an illegal act became legal because it was a protest (you just shotgunned some court cases that didn't do that ), and moved the goal post from "made demands" to "threaten" I really doubt it.

But on the off chance you will explain the above, no-knock warrants, arrests of people for videotaping (especially in MD where they charged people for wiretapping), there was the case in NYC where they corralled people on a bridge then arrested them for being on the bridge, etc.
 
2012-08-27 07:58:44 PM

liam76: Given how you never answered my question about court cases where an illegal act became legal because it was a protest


United States v. Cruikshank (1876)
The Supreme Court said that the "right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for any thing else connected with the powers and duties of the national government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States." The high court applied the liberty only to any federal government's encroachment.

De Jonge v. Oregon (1937)
De Jonge was convicted for conducting a public meeting under the auspices of the Communist Party. De Jonge had not advocated any illegal activity or criminal doctrine. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed his conviction as unnecessarily restrictive of his freedom of speech and right of peaceable assembly. The high court's ruling applied the right of peaceable assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. And put these rights on equal footing with freedom of speech and the press. "[P]eaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed."

Hague v. C.I.O. (1939)
The high court ruled that peaceful demonstrators may not be prosecuted for "disorderly conduct." This case also secured streets and sidewalks as public forums.

Thornhill v. Alabama (1940)
The Supreme Court held that orderly union picketing that informs the public of the issues is protected by the constitutional freedom of speech and of the press and the right of peaceable assembly and cannot be prosecuted under state loitering and picketing laws.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
A unanimous Supreme Court upheld a local (Manchester) ordinance that required every parade or procession on a public street to obtain a license for a fee. Jehovah's Witnesses had brought the suit alleging that the city of Manchester had denied their religious freedom. The court was clear that ordinance had to be reasonable and designed for the safe and orderly use of the streets.

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
In an 8-to-1 decision the high court overturned the breach of the peace convictions of 180 black students who had peacefully marched to the state capitol to protest discrimination. The police stopped the demonstration and arrested the students because they were afraid that the 200-300 who gathered to watch the demonstration might cause a riot. The court held the state law unconstitutionally overbroad because it penalized the exercise of free speech, peaceable assembly, and the right of petition for a redress of grievances. A disorderly crowd, or the fear of one, cannot be used to stop a peaceful demonstration or cancel the right of peaceable assembly.

Cox v. Louisiana (1965)
Rev. B. Elton Cox was arrested and convicted for breach of the peace in Baton Rouge, La., for leading a demonstation of 2,000 black college students from the state capitol to the courthouse to protest the jailing of 23 other students for attempting to integrate white lunch counters. The high court overturned his conviction, 7-to-2, and held the state's breach of the peace law overly broad.
Amalgamated Food Employee's Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968)
Concerning the legality of peaceful picketing on privately owned grounds.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Concerning the assembly of a Klu Klux Klan group.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (1969)

Bachellor v. Maryland (1970)

Flower v. United States (1972)

Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB (1972)

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972)

Police Department of Chicago v. Mosely (1972)
Concerning picketing at any school involved in labor disputes.

Grayned v. Rockford (1972)

Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984)
Concerning sleeping in connection with protests.

Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)
Concerning the limits of protest in front of a foreign embassy.
 
2012-08-27 08:50:44 PM

Magruda: liam76: Given how you never answered my question about court cases where an illegal act became legal because it was a protest


Great, instead of shotgunning out links that don't answer the question you barfed up some copy-pasta that doesn't answer the question.

What is really great is that you posted some cases that I already pointed out don't apply.

Read through those. None of them take an illegal act and say it was legal because it was done in a protest. In fact (as I pointed out before) some of the cases even say the "right to assemble" doesn't extend to the states.
 
2012-08-27 08:59:09 PM

Magruda: Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984)
Concerning sleeping in connection with protests.

-Can't sleep in a park overnight just because it is a protest.

You do realize that this back up my point, right?

Did you even read up on any of these?
 
2012-08-27 09:01:15 PM

liam76: Read through those. None of them take an illegal act and say it was legal because it was done in a protest.


Cox v. Louisiana (1965)
Rev. B. Elton Cox was arrested and convicted for breach of the peace in Baton Rouge, La., for leading a demonstation of 2,000 black college students from the state capitol to the courthouse to protest the jailing of 23 other students for attempting to integrate white lunch counters. The high court overturned his conviction, 7-to-2, and held the state's breach of the peace law overly broad.

Was arrested, was convicted, was overturned based on 1st amendment rights....
 
2012-08-27 09:09:46 PM

liam76: Magruda: Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984)
Concerning sleeping in connection with protests. -Can't sleep in a park overnight just because it is a protest.

You do realize that this back up my point, right?

Did you even read up on any of these?


you obviously didn't read any of them if you are just now getting to that, btw, i never made the argument that camping was free speach.

Funny that case was in 1984 though.
 
2012-08-27 09:15:11 PM

Magruda: liam76: Read through those. None of them take an illegal act and say it was legal because it was done in a protest.

Cox v. Louisiana (1965)
Rev. B. Elton Cox was arrested and convicted for breach of the peace in Baton Rouge, La., for leading a demonstation of 2,000 black college students from the state capitol to the courthouse to protest the jailing of 23 other students for attempting to integrate white lunch counters. The high court overturned his conviction, 7-to-2, and held the state's breach of the peace law overly broad.

Was arrested, was convicted, was overturned based on 1st amendment rights....


They said the law was overly broad. They didn't say it was a protest so it was legal.
 
2012-08-27 09:20:43 PM

Magruda: liam76: Magruda: Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984)
Concerning sleeping in connection with protests. -Can't sleep in a park overnight just because it is a protest.

You do realize that this back up my point, right?

Did you even read up on any of these?

you obviously didn't read any of them if you are just now getting to that, btw, i never made the argument that camping was free speach.

Funny that case was in 1984 though.


I responded to few when you posted the link earlier and after the first three either agreed with, or had nothing to do with my point I saw no reason to go on.

I missed this one in the link before and found it funny because it goes completely against the point you are trying to argue.

No you never said camping was free speech but you disagreed when I said an otherwise illegal act doesn't become legal because it is a protest. You tried to prove me wrong with a court case that agrees with me.
 
2012-08-27 09:31:06 PM
Is everybody on Fark a lawyer?
 
2012-08-27 09:33:36 PM

liam76: rdalton: I'm watching the one at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4406KJQMc

It looks like the police are surrounded but no one interferes with their coming or going. I don't see any of the police looking around like they are scared. I don't see any arm linking ourside of the students on the ground.


If you surround someone, you are interfering with their coming and going.

The students on the ground have them surrounded.

None of this is debated by the protestors themselves who were interviewed afterwards.

Police don't have to "look scared" to use pepperspray.


The cops stepped over and around the sitting students several times before they got sprayed, the cop even stepped over them to get to his car for the spray and stepped back over them to get the best angle of attack. Not once were any of the cops interfered with before the spraying.

After they sprayed the students and decided to take them in, they were surrounded. By people who did nothing but chant. If that makes you so afraid, then why are you a police officer?
 
2012-08-27 09:56:13 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: If that makes you so afraid, then why are you a police officer?


You know what, I am just going to call you out on this. If you've never been a police officer you can't possibly know what it is like to be a police officer. You know you can't sit in a restaurant in uniform unless you can see all the exits, you know you can't park your car to work on paperwork unless you have an unobstructed view 360 degrees, you know you can't shake hands with people you've just met while you're working, you know you can't use a public bathroom while your working. No you don't know any of these things because you obviously have never been a cop.

People attack cops simply because they are cops, lunatics attack cops for sport. All of the things I mentioned are daily reminders that as a cop at work you are in danger just by doing simple things that everyone else takes for granted. Do you want someone to come in the back door of a McDonalds and shoot you, how about sneak up on your car? Do you want someone to grab you when you try to be a nice guy by shaking hands with the same hand you use for your gun? Do you want to get shot while taking a leak, or have to hang your gun up on a hook in a stall?

Do you want protesters who may be hiding weapons of one sort or another, whom you have to arrest for violation of the law to be able to hide those weapons or injure one another with their arms locked together. When you arrest someone their safety becomes your responsibility.

I don't think they should have been sprayed, but it beat beating all of them on the arms until they let go of one another and could be arrested. I would have waited for more police officers, but perhaps they didn't have that luxury. The protesters could have obeyed the law and followed the lawful commands of the police, they didn't and were arrested. Not for protesting, but for failing to follow lawful orders

You're an imbecile.
 
2012-08-27 10:16:21 PM

liam76: Magruda: liam76: Read through those. None of them take an illegal act and say it was legal because it was done in a protest.

Cox v. Louisiana (1965)
Rev. B. Elton Cox was arrested and convicted for breach of the peace in Baton Rouge, La., for leading a demonstation of 2,000 black college students from the state capitol to the courthouse to protest the jailing of 23 other students for attempting to integrate white lunch counters. The high court overturned his conviction, 7-to-2, and held the state's breach of the peace law overly broad.

Was arrested, was convicted, was overturned based on 1st amendment rights....

They said the law was overly broad. They didn't say it was a protest so it was legal.


You think attempting to intergrate a white lunch counter is not a protest? Did they even cover the 60s in that suburban highschool of yours?
 
Displayed 50 of 534 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report