Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(WMUR New Hampshire)   Counter protester at Mayors Against Illegal Guns rally speaks his peace, turns to leave, and is confronted by police. He explains he's done talking and is leaving. Police explain STOP RESISTING STOP RESISTING ZAPPPPP TIKTIIKKATIKKATIKKA   (wmur.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, counters, rally  
•       •       •

13075 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 9:55 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-19 08:56:20 AM  
Which is not remotely what the article said, of course.
 
2013-06-19 09:04:58 AM  
Why is this even news? Let alone one lasting as long as it did. The guy was an asshole. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but there's a way to do it and a way to be an asshole.

Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.
 
2013-06-19 09:14:18 AM  
After numerous interjections, Musso decided to walk away, but Concord police had been called. When officers began talking to him, Musso initiated physical contact with police, Sexton said.

Yup, headline really got the facts straight...
 
2013-06-19 09:18:34 AM  
Also, it's "speaks his piece."
 
2013-06-19 09:24:55 AM  
Once again, a headline that demonstrates the fine line between "using creative snark to poke fun at the article" and "being a farking idiot who can't read."
 
2013-06-19 09:32:03 AM  

Pocket Ninja: Once again, a headline that demonstrates the fine line between "using creative snark to poke fun at the article" and "being a farking idiot who can't read."


Gotcha clickin' though, didn't it?
 
2013-06-19 09:32:47 AM  
Coincidentally, TIKTIIKKATIKKATIKKA is the middle name of my Makaa'n neighbor.
 
2013-06-19 09:41:51 AM  
1) He's a dick for interrupting like that.
2) That's some pretty weak "physical contact" that he initiated there.
 
2013-06-19 09:46:38 AM  

Mentat: Which is not remotely what the article said, of course.


Yep.  Nice & troll-y headline you got there, submitter...
 
2013-06-19 09:54:59 AM  
So he's a mayor in support of illegal guns?  Or is it guns for illegals?  Anti-steroid?

I'm sure any are possible in the article.
 
2013-06-19 10:02:02 AM  
he did "initiate physical contact," but that's quite a stretch to the escalation of force.  He was receiving a warning from one cop while the other was going for an arm lock? Also, I love the look on the guy's face when he has 3 cops giving him a hug and working against each other to take him down.
 
2013-06-19 10:03:27 AM  
Cops are pussies.
 
2013-06-19 10:03:51 AM  
The guy at the podium should have shot the douchnozzle for getting in his face. Coming right at him, castle doctrine, etc etc.

/It's what the douchenozzle would have wanted.
 
2013-06-19 10:04:36 AM  
And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.
 
2013-06-19 10:06:16 AM  
You have freedom of speech, unless we don't like what you have to say, subjects...
 
2013-06-19 10:08:07 AM  

cwheelie: And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.


This.

And while it is weak physical contact, if a judge finds it aggressive that he seemed to be attempting to turn the cop (weakly) that is enough.
 
2013-06-19 10:08:20 AM  
img.fark.net

heh heh heh.. all of a sudden i thought a mongoose flag could be a counter to the don't tread on me flag
 
2013-06-19 10:09:15 AM  

cwheelie: And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.


What, you mean like Mayor Bloomberg's personal bodyguard?
 
2013-06-19 10:09:31 AM  

PreMortem: Coincidentally, TIKTIIKKATIKKATIKKA is the middle name of my Makaa'n neighbor.


In the TIKATIKATIKATIKATIKA room
Where the birds sing words and the flowers HNGGGGGG!!!! *thud*
 
2013-06-19 10:09:39 AM  

bullsballs: You have freedom of speech, unless we don't like what you have to say, subjects...


That's "citizen" to you, citizen.
 
2013-06-19 10:09:46 AM  
tikka tikka?  the man was obviously just looking for a curry
 
2013-06-19 10:10:26 AM  

MmmCrime: cwheelie: And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.

This.

And while it is weak physical contact, if a judge finds it aggressive that he seemed to be attempting to turn the cop (weakly) that is enough.


Then you need a jury to convict him.
 
2013-06-19 10:11:32 AM  
you know, looking from the outside (Canada) at all these gun retards you have down south is sometimes amusing, sometimes scary.

of all the things to get worked up over, a farking gun? really? that's the best you can do? how about you just go half retard and get really passionate about Nascar, or UFC?

but guns?
 
2013-06-19 10:11:49 AM  
It's Mayors Against Guns. They don't care at all if they are "illegal" or not. AND they are losing badly in the court of public opinion.

/Gun Control is STILL a loser at the polls
 
2013-06-19 10:12:40 AM  

snuff3r: Why is this even news? Let alone one lasting as long as it did. The guy was an asshole. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but there's a way to do it and a way to be an asshole.

Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.


Thread over.
 
2013-06-19 10:13:18 AM  
Well, the 4th amendment is dead and the 2nd under constant assault.  We may as well put that pesky 1st to ground while we're at it.
 
2013-06-19 10:13:20 AM  
Punching a cop in the face = assault
Pushing a cop away from you hard enough he has to take a step back = assault.
Touching a cop's arm = not assault

Seriously? He just touched the cop. He wasn't threatning him. I've seen cops damn near lose their shiat when one is just standing around, and a guy walks up to ask him a general question and taps him on the shoulder 'Excuse me sir..." and the cop acts like the guy stuck his penis in his pocket. "DON'T TOUCH ME SIR! YOU GOT THAT? DO NOT TOUCH ME AGAIN OR I WILL ARREST YOU!" Arrest for what? Felonious shoulder touching?

Read about a case where someone was getting mouthy with a cop (not the smart thing, I agree) and the cop pushed him away very forcefully. I guy tripped and in trying to break his fall, he reached out to grab anything. He got the cop's vest, and in doing so, broke his name badge. They charged him with destruction of government property.
 
2013-06-19 10:13:39 AM  

PreMortem: Coincidentally, TIKTIIKKATIKKATIKKA is the middle name of my Makaa'n neighbor.


lulz!
 
2013-06-19 10:17:31 AM  
Subby could get a job for Fox news.
 
2013-06-19 10:17:41 AM  
"Live Free or Die", my ass. Along with Connecticut, the former "Constitution State."
 
2013-06-19 10:18:01 AM  
guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him

then the political tool starts talking about free speech
awesome
 
2013-06-19 10:18:35 AM  
Don't tase on me

/bro
 
2013-06-19 10:20:32 AM  
When officers began talking to him, Musso initiated physical contact with police, Sexton said.

If you're going to swing at the po-po, they'll swing back.
 
2013-06-19 10:21:23 AM  

Donnchadha: PreMortem: Coincidentally, TIKTIIKKATIKKATIKKA is the middle name of my Makaa'n neighbor.

In the TIKATIKATIKATIKATIKA room
Where the birds sing words and the flowers HNGGGGGG!!!! *thud*


I thought it was: Nikki Nikki Tembo No So Rembo Oo Ma Moochi Gamma Gamma Goochi
AKA: Long Name No Can Say
http://nikkinikkitembo.angelfire.com/

/I could be wrong
 
2013-06-19 10:22:25 AM  
Tip for life: If the police are standing in your way, yelling at you, doing just about anything you find annoying the solution is never to touch them in any way. It gives them an excuse to arrest you and will pretty much ruin your day.
 
2013-06-19 10:22:52 AM  
Free Stater. I'd buy those cops a beer if I could.

being an asshole should have consequences.
 
2013-06-19 10:23:38 AM  
That guy was there to cause trouble and hopefully provoke an arrest, and the cops were there to provoke him into doing something arrestable. All of them should be cited for disorderly conduct.
 
2013-06-19 10:24:58 AM  
The guy was being a total dick to someone who had lost a child, but the cops shouldn't have tased him. If you can't take down a guy slightly larger than you all  by yourself, without using a potentially deadly weapon (and tasers do kill people) you shouldn't be allowed to be a cop.

That said, I wish these people who are so adamant about gun rights would apply that passion equally to other important social issues.
 
2013-06-19 10:27:00 AM  

MythDragon: Touching a cop's arm = not assault


Tell you what.  Touch a cop in a condescending way and see what happens.  Doesn't matter how morally superior you feel, don't be a dumb ass.

"Why are you shaking talking about this? You're not the truth!" Musso said.

What...  What does that even mean.
 
2013-06-19 10:27:08 AM  
Holy crap, invade personal space much? Also, who the hell touches people while arguing with them?
 
2013-06-19 10:27:12 AM  

Carth: Tip for life: If the police are standing in your way, yelling at you, doing just about anything you find annoying the solution is never to touch them in any way. It gives them an excuse to arrest you and will pretty much ruin your day.


They need an excuse now? Wow. I'm glad to see the era of police asshattery is coming to close.
 
2013-06-19 10:28:55 AM  

bullsballs: You have freedom of speech, unless we don't like what you have to say, subjects...


Hecklers should never speak the words "Freedom of Speech."   Shouting over someone is effectively denying their freedom of speech.  Tacky.
 
2013-06-19 10:29:00 AM  

natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him



Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.
 
2013-06-19 10:29:02 AM  
In order to be a "counter protestor" doesn't one have to be interrupting a protest at another event, as opposed to interrupting a rally/speech, in which case one would just be a "protestor"? A counter-protestor would be someone who tried to interfere with what his group was doing (which was, it appears, interfering with another event).

/used to live in NH so I'm getting a kick out of this
//watched a neighbor of mine talk himself from a noise warning into handcuffs
///since when is it news that so much as looking like you're thinking about considering touching a cop is "assault"?
 
2013-06-19 10:29:25 AM  
There is a Mayors Against Illegal Guns group?  I thought objects and people can't be "illegal" (e.g. illegal aliens).

Is there a Mayors For Illegal Guns group that they are trying to counter?
 
2013-06-19 10:29:57 AM  
A handshake with a cop would also be enough for him to tase you, so why is this news?
 
2013-06-19 10:30:51 AM  

Parmenius: That guy was there to cause trouble and hopefully provoke an arrest, and the cops were there to provoke him into doing something arrestable.


He had already done something arrest worthy.

fark him.
 
2013-06-19 10:31:34 AM  
Simple rule I tell my kids:  Gun + Badge = wins.   You get pulled over by a cop you say, "yes sir, no sir," and you damned well better do it politely.  You want to argue, you go do it in court...period.

What's fun is white +50 males are now discovering that when it comes to protests, the cops don't like you.  And if you're dumb enough to touch one...in ANY way...you are gonna eat pavement.  Gun + badge = wins.
 
2013-06-19 10:32:43 AM  

liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.


No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.
 
2013-06-19 10:33:25 AM  

snuff3r: Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.


You're a farking IDIOT if you accept this fact as reasonable though...
 
2013-06-19 10:33:48 AM  

Pockafrusta: "Live Free or Die", my ass. Along with Connecticut, the former "Constitution State."


Cry harder.
 
2013-06-19 10:35:06 AM  

snuff3r: Why is this even news? Let alone one lasting as long as it did. The guy was an asshole. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but there's a way to do it and a way to be an asshole.

Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.


Yeah that's what he gets for mouthing off outside of a Free Speech Zone.

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 10:35:15 AM  

ChaosStar: liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.

No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.


Sure he could, you can get arrested simply because a cop feels like arresting you.
 
2013-06-19 10:36:07 AM  

ChaosStar: liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.

No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.


So if the cops don't catch him actively "disturbing the peace", even if there's video evidence of him doing so, he gets off scot free?

I should use that the next time I argue a traffic camera violation -- "You see, by the time you reviewed the camera footage, I had stopped speeding, therefore I was committing no crime"
 
2013-06-19 10:36:20 AM  

SuburbanCowboy: The guy was being a total dick to someone who had lost a child, but the cops shouldn't have tased him. If you can't take down a guy slightly larger than you all  by yourself, without using a potentially deadly weapon (and tasers do kill people) you shouldn't be allowed to be a cop.

That said, I wish these people who are so adamant about gun rights would apply that passion equally to other important social issues.


Does sleeping kill people? A lot of deaths occur while sleeping too I bet.

Tasers kill is something mostly said by people who don't understand amps vs. volts, as far as I can tell. Unless you meant the rare instance of someone falling badly while being tased, or so hopped up on drugs that their own freaking out is really what killed them and likely would have had they been physically taken down.
 
2013-06-19 10:37:25 AM  
Sexton said the rally attracted a passionate pro-Second Amendment crowd, including Musso, who now faces multiple charges, including simple assault of a police officer.

As opposed to complex assault of a police officer? I don't want to get into a discussion about the merits or lack thereof about background checks or gun control or the second amendment or anything, but I am curious if "simple assault" is a specific criminal charge (either generally or in that area specifically) or if that's just the author of TFA trying to imply that the assault wasn't nearly as bad as the word "assault" sometimes implies.
 
2013-06-19 10:38:51 AM  

Headso: snuff3r: Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.

You're a farking IDIOT if you accept this fact as reasonable though...


Maybe. I don't find it unreasonable that it is illegal for me to resist arrest, push past cops, etc. Maybe we are thinking of different scenarios?


Are you going to go fight the good fight and go poke some cops this week? Can you get us a youtube video?
 
2013-06-19 10:41:04 AM  

dittybopper: MmmCrime: cwheelie: And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.

This.

And while it is weak physical contact, if a judge finds it aggressive that he seemed to be attempting to turn the cop (weakly) that is enough.

Then you need a jury to convict him.


And the jury will consist of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty whose combined legal expertise consists of one of them having once watched a rerun of Law & Order or CSI.

____________________________

MythDragon: Punching a cop in the face = assault
Pushing a cop away from you hard enough he has to take a step back = assault.
Touching a cop's arm = not assault

Seriously? He just touched the cop. He wasn't threatning him. I've seen cops damn near lose their shiat when one is just standing around, and a guy walks up to ask him a general question and taps him on the shoulder 'Excuse me sir..." and the cop acts like the guy stuck his penis in his pocket. "DON'T TOUCH ME SIR! YOU GOT THAT? DO NOT TOUCH ME AGAIN OR I WILL ARREST YOU!" Arrest for what? Felonious shoulder touching?

Read about a case where someone was getting mouthy with a cop (not the smart thing, I agree) and the cop pushed him away very forcefully. I guy tripped and in trying to break his fall, he reached out to grab anything. He got the cop's vest, and in doing so, broke his name badge. They charged him with destruction of government property.


Depends on the jurisdiction. In Florida, that slight bit of touching would count as battery, which is a felony even if the "victim" (read:person on the receiving end of the touch, even if the contact is so weak that he or she wouldn't notice it if they weren't paying attention) is not a cop.
 
2013-06-19 10:42:18 AM  
I don't have any sound on my office computer so I don't know what was being said between him and the cops, but just visually, it didn't look like the guy did anything to deserve that.
 
2013-06-19 10:42:29 AM  

snuff3r: Why is this even news? Let alone one lasting as long as it did. The guy was an asshole. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but there's a way to do it and a way to be an asshole.

Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.


That's never a good touch.
 
2013-06-19 10:42:49 AM  

Donnchadha: ChaosStar: liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.

No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

So if the cops don't catch him actively "disturbing the peace", even if there's video evidence of him doing so, he gets off scot free?

I should use that the next time I argue a traffic camera violation -- "You see, by the time you reviewed the camera footage, I had stopped speeding, therefore I was committing no crime"


Reading over someone's shoulder and asking them questions about what they're speaking about, even during the speech, may be annoying but it's not disturbing the peace.

Let me rephrase, because I know how Farkers operate, it's not disturbing the peace if the disturbing the peace statue is constitutional. Many of them are vague and over-reaching so they turn out not to be.

Red light cameras? Really? You do know that apples and oranges are different right?
 
2013-06-19 10:43:02 AM  
With all the cops using their tasers to show off power, from now on if I see a cop trapped in a burning car, I'll say cool...this is going to be an awesome video.
 
2013-06-19 10:44:21 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.

No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

Sure he could, you can get arrested simply because a cop feels like arresting you.


If being hyperbolic: heh heh
If being serious: No they really can't
 
2013-06-19 10:44:25 AM  
I will bite. What did he do that was arrest worthy.  I used to be a police officer and I can tell you that interrupting a speaker at a rally isn't arrest worthy.  The police shouldn't have even touched him since he was walking away.  Also the officer who's arm he touched should no have been obstructing him and keeping him from walking away.  The police escalated this situation.
We tend to forget we have rights.  The police can't just detain you for any reason they see fit.  Most police academies aren't even real police academies any more.   Now they are run by the local community college and last 3 maybe 4 months.  That isn't much education or training given the responsibilities that duty of office carries.  Even if the police arrived to investigate the complaint, unless there was something clearly evident that this man had done something serious,  he should have been free to leave.  You can yell during a presidential address and as long as you are not being profane or vulgar it isn't necessarily a crime.  It certainly does not meet the standard of disorderly conduct in most states.
 
2013-06-19 10:46:34 AM  

MythDragon: Seriously? He just touched the cop. He wasn't threatning him. I've seen cops damn near lose their shiat when one is just standing around, and a guy walks up to ask him a general question and taps him on the shoulder 'Excuse me sir..." and the cop acts like the guy stuck his penis in his pocket. "DON'T TOUCH ME SIR! YOU GOT THAT? DO NOT TOUCH ME AGAIN OR I WILL ARREST YOU!" Arrest for what? Felonious shoulder touching?


I used to protest like you, then I took a touch to the shoulder.
 
Ant
2013-06-19 10:48:33 AM  
The guy was being a dick to the speaker, but the cops really over reacted to the supposed "physical contact" AKA gentle shoulder touching. They should've just told the guy to get lost. Now they're just feeding the rabid right wingers.
 
2013-06-19 10:48:51 AM  

ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.

No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

Sure he could, you can get arrested simply because a cop feels like arresting you.

If being hyperbolic: heh heh
If being serious: No they really can't


Yes, they really can. If they've decided those cuffs are going on, they're going on.

You're obviously free to resist, but don't be too surprised about the results. Better move is to just deal with it and tell it to the judge.
 
Ant
2013-06-19 10:49:23 AM  

Donnchadha: PreMortem: Coincidentally, TIKTIIKKATIKKATIKKA is the middle name of my Makaa'n neighbor.

In the TIKATIKATIKATIKATIKA room
Where the birds sing words and the flowers HNGGGGGG!!!! *thud*


I laughed
 
2013-06-19 10:51:21 AM  

ChaosStar: Red light cameras? Really? You do know that apples and oranges are different right?


Let me slow it down for you....

In response to "Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that." you said "No, he really couldn't".

What you're saying is that the police would be unable to arrest the man because they did not witness the act. The fact that whatever he had done was done before the police arrived somehow prevented the police from taking action.

At this point, that statement is made with no knowledge or concern for what potential crime was being committed. It could have been disturbing the peace, jaywalking, assault, making terroristic threats -- it doesn't matter. If the police didn't witness it, they can't arrest him.

I pointed out that that is BS. If there's evidence (especially video evidence captured by a third party) that somebody committed a crime, the police can arrest/charge/cite you for it within the statute of limitations.
 
2013-06-19 10:51:30 AM  

MythDragon: Carth: Tip for life: If the police are standing in your way, yelling at you, doing just about anything you find annoying the solution is never to touch them in any way. It gives them an excuse to arrest you and will pretty much ruin your day.

They need an excuse now? Wow. I'm glad to see the era of police asshattery is coming to close.


When they have a camera for the states largest news network right in their face? Yes. they do.
 
2013-06-19 10:53:08 AM  

Smackledorfer: Headso: snuff3r: Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.

You're a farking IDIOT if you accept this fact as reasonable though...

Maybe. I don't find it unreasonable that it is illegal for me to resist arrest, push past cops, etc. Maybe we are thinking of different scenarios?


Are you going to go fight the good fight and go poke some cops this week? Can you get us a youtube video?


yeah we are thinking of different scenarios, I am referring to the video this thread is about.
 
Ant
2013-06-19 10:53:13 AM  

Pichu0102: Holy crap, invade personal space much? Also, who the hell touches people while arguing with them?


It looked like he was trying to get the cop out of his way so he could leave.
 
2013-06-19 10:54:06 AM  

leeto2: Simple rule I tell my kids:  Gun + Badge = wins.   You get pulled over by a cop you say, "yes sir, no sir," and you damned well better do it politely.  You want to argue, you go do it in court...period.

What's fun is white +50 males are now discovering that when it comes to protests, the cops don't like you.  And if you're dumb enough to touch one...in ANY way...you are gonna eat pavement.  Gun + badge = wins.


And yet, there were upwards of 12,000 people who protested the new NYS SAFE Act in downtown Albany a few months ago, and *ZERO* trouble.
 
Ant
2013-06-19 10:57:13 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: There is a Mayors Against Illegal Guns group?  I thought objects and people can't be "illegal" (e.g. illegal aliens).

Is there a Mayors For Illegal Guns group that they are trying to counter?


Lots of objects are illegal. Drugs, nuclear weapons, etc.

/no wonder they call you tenpoundsofderp
 
2013-06-19 10:57:28 AM  

Donnchadha: ChaosStar: Red light cameras? Really? You do know that apples and oranges are different right?

Let me slow it down for you....

In response to "Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that." you said "No, he really couldn't".

What you're saying is that the police would be unable to arrest the man because they did not witness the act. The fact that whatever he had done was done before the police arrived somehow prevented the police from taking action.

At this point, that statement is made with no knowledge or concern for what potential crime was being committed. It could have been disturbing the peace, jaywalking, assault, making terroristic threats -- it doesn't matter. If the police didn't witness it, they can't arrest him.

I pointed out that that is BS. If there's evidence (especially video evidence captured by a third party) that somebody committed a crime, the police can arrest/charge/cite you for it within the statute of limitations.


Additionally, even if they don't have the probable cause to arrest, the reasonable suspicion necessary for an investigative detention is sufficient enough to physically keep someone from walking away.
 
2013-06-19 10:57:35 AM  

ChaosStar: Let me rephrase, because I know how Farkers operate, it's not disturbing the peace if the disturbing the peace statue is constitutional. Many of them are vague and over-reaching so they turn out not to be.



If soemone is holding a legal gathering and you stroll in shouting over the speaker, crowding his podium you are not "quitely behaved" your actions are not "free from strife ro disorder" and in fact your behavior is "contentious or quarrelsome".

and in case you are wondering the italisized are exactly why it isn't protected.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peaceable
 
2013-06-19 10:57:55 AM  
He didn't "just touch" the cop. He pushed on him to get him to move out of the way, enough to move the cop (even slightly). It was disrespectful and assholish - doing it in a non-cop situation would still probably escalate it to a violent confrontation.

How about you don't put your farking hands on people, and maybe things will stay calm?

Also, those cops need take down training. He was standing straight up, yet three of them had trouble taking him down. Use your weight and leverage to control him, don't just jump on his back and hang there.
 
2013-06-19 10:58:11 AM  

dittybopper: leeto2: Simple rule I tell my kids:  Gun + Badge = wins.   You get pulled over by a cop you say, "yes sir, no sir," and you damned well better do it politely.  You want to argue, you go do it in court...period.

What's fun is white +50 males are now discovering that when it comes to protests, the cops don't like you.  And if you're dumb enough to touch one...in ANY way...you are gonna eat pavement.  Gun + badge = wins.

And yet, there were upwards of 12,000 people who protested the new NYS SAFE Act in downtown Albany a few months ago, and *ZERO* trouble.


That doesn't mean the cops like them.
 
2013-06-19 10:58:20 AM  

dittybopper: leeto2: Simple rule I tell my kids:  Gun + Badge = wins.   You get pulled over by a cop you say, "yes sir, no sir," and you damned well better do it politely.  You want to argue, you go do it in court...period.

What's fun is white +50 males are now discovering that when it comes to protests, the cops don't like you.  And if you're dumb enough to touch one...in ANY way...you are gonna eat pavement.  Gun + badge = wins.

And yet, there were upwards of 12,000 people who protested the new NYS SAFE Act in downtown Albany a few months ago, and *ZERO* trouble.


Gun nuts with 1" rage boners care not about facts.
 
2013-06-19 10:59:12 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.

No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

Sure he could, you can get arrested simply because a cop feels like arresting you.

If being hyperbolic: heh heh
If being serious: No they really can't

Yes, they really can. If they've decided those cuffs are going on, they're going on.

You're obviously free to resist, but don't be too surprised about the results. Better move is to just deal with it and tell it to the judge.


You do know that you can be put in cuffs without being arrested right?
/I don't think you do
 
2013-06-19 10:59:45 AM  

Smackledorfer: SuburbanCowboy: The guy was being a total dick to someone who had lost a child, but the cops shouldn't have tased him. If you can't take down a guy slightly larger than you all  by yourself, without using a potentially deadly weapon (and tasers do kill people) you shouldn't be allowed to be a cop.

That said, I wish these people who are so adamant about gun rights would apply that passion equally to other important social issues.

Does sleeping kill people? A lot of deaths occur while sleeping too I bet.

Tasers kill is something mostly said by people who don't understand amps vs. volts, as far as I can tell. Unless you meant the rare instance of someone falling badly while being tased, or so hopped up on drugs that their own freaking out is really what killed them and likely would have had they been physically taken down.



2011[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taser_safety_issues&ac tion=e dit&section=23" title="Edit section: 2011" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">edit]May 6, 2011,June 6, 2011,June 28, 2011,August 6, 2011,<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" en.wikipedia.org="" wiki="" cincinnati,_ohio"="" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati,_Ohio" title="Cincinnati, Ohio" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Cincinnati, Ohio, an 18-year-old attending summer classes at the University of Cincinnati was struck by a campus officer's stun gun and died of cardiac arrest.August 7, 2011,August 16, 2011,August 23, 2011,Sept 13, 2011,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damon_Barnett&action=ed it&re dlink=1" class="new" title="Damon Barnett (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Damon Barnett, inSeptember 2011,October 31, 2011,November 15, 2011November 15, 2011,November 16, 2011,November 22, 2011,
 
2013-06-19 11:00:56 AM  
Police used an electronic stun gun
Are they really "electronic"? I thought they were electrical.
 
2013-06-19 11:01:17 AM  

Donnchadha: ChaosStar: Red light cameras? Really? You do know that apples and oranges are different right?

Let me slow it down for you....

In response to "Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that." you said "No, he really couldn't".

What you're saying is that the police would be unable to arrest the man because they did not witness the act. The fact that whatever he had done was done before the police arrived somehow prevented the police from taking action.

At this point, that statement is made with no knowledge or concern for what potential crime was being committed. It could have been disturbing the peace, jaywalking, assault, making terroristic threats -- it doesn't matter. If the police didn't witness it, they can't arrest him.

I pointed out that that is BS. If there's evidence (especially video evidence captured by a third party) that somebody committed a crime, the police can arrest/charge/cite you for it within the statute of limitations.


Also we don't know what the police saw.  he might have started to leave after the police saw him disturbing the peace and approaching him.

normally I don't give police the benefit of the doubt, but when you clearly see the guy break the law and then see him try and get away from police by nudging them away, that is a different story.
 
2013-06-19 11:01:33 AM  

Donnchadha: ChaosStar: Red light cameras? Really? You do know that apples and oranges are different right?

Let me slow it down for you....

In response to "Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that." you said "No, he really couldn't".

What you're saying is that the police would be unable to arrest the man because they did not witness the act. The fact that whatever he had done was done before the police arrived somehow prevented the police from taking action.

At this point, that statement is made with no knowledge or concern for what potential crime was being committed. It could have been disturbing the peace, jaywalking, assault, making terroristic threats -- it doesn't matter. If the police didn't witness it, they can't arrest him.

I pointed out that that is BS. If there's evidence (especially video evidence captured by a third party) that somebody committed a crime, the police can arrest/charge/cite you for it within the statute of limitations.


Really? Please point out where I said that, cause I never did.
 
2013-06-19 11:01:43 AM  

joeshill: 2011[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taser_safety_issues&ac tion=e dit§ion=23" title="Edit section: 2011" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">edit]May 6, 2011,June 6, 2011,June 28, 2011,August 6, 2011,<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" en.wikipedia.org="" wiki="" cincinnati,_ohio"="" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati,_Ohio" title="Cincinnati, Ohio" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Cincinnati, Ohio, an 18-year-old attending summer classes at the University of Cincinnati was struck by a campus officer's stun gun and died of cardiac arrest.August 7, 2011,August 16, 2011,August 23, 2011,Sept 13, 2011,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damon_Barnett&action=ed it&re dlink=1" class="new" title="Damon Barnett (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Damon Barnett, inSeptember 2011,October 31, 2011,November 15, 2011November 15, 2011,November 16, 2011,November 22, 2011,


I completely agree
 
2013-06-19 11:02:17 AM  

joeshill: Smackledorfer: SuburbanCowboy: The guy was being a total dick to someone who had lost a child, but the cops shouldn't have tased him. If you can't take down a guy slightly larger than you all  by yourself, without using a potentially deadly weapon (and tasers do kill people) you shouldn't be allowed to be a cop.

That said, I wish these people who are so adamant about gun rights would apply that passion equally to other important social issues.

Does sleeping kill people? A lot of deaths occur while sleeping too I bet.

Tasers kill is something mostly said by people who don't understand amps vs. volts, as far as I can tell. Unless you meant the rare instance of someone falling badly while being tased, or so hopped up on drugs that their own freaking out is really what killed them and likely would have had they been physically taken down.


2011[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taser_safety_issues&ac tion=e dit§ion=23" title="Edit section: 2011" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">edit]May 6, 2011,June 6, 2011,June 28, 2011,August 6, 2011,<a data-cke-saved-href="<a href=" href="<a href=" http:="" en.wikipedia.org="" wiki="" cincinnati,_ohio"="" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati,_Ohio" title="Cincinnati, Ohio" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(11, 0, 128); background-image: none; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Cincinnati, Ohio, an 18-year-old attending summer classes at the University of Cincinnati was struck by a campus officer's stun gun and died of cardiac arrest.August 7, 2011,August 16, 2011,August 23, 2011,Sept 13, 2011,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damon_Barnett&action=ed it&re dlink=1" class="new" title="Damon Barnett (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(165, 88, 88); background-image: ...


Sorry.  That sucked as a response.  I'll just wander away and drool over there...
 
2013-06-19 11:03:29 AM  
Funny thing about this is if it had been a pro gun rally and the fellow was anti-gun this place would be a farking mad house with people calling for the cops to be fired, blaming republicans for every evil on the planet etc etc.Perspective is a biatch folks.
 
2013-06-19 11:03:31 AM  

TheOnion: After numerous interjections, Musso decided to walk away, but Concord police had been called. When officers began talking to him, Musso initiated physical contact with police, Sexton said.

Yup, headline really got the facts straight...


yeah, dud forgot that your never supposed to touch a cop...  He must be one of those hands-on/touchy kind of people...  More of them need to be tazed, i'm tired of that shiat...
 
2013-06-19 11:03:45 AM  

ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.

No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

Sure he could, you can get arrested simply because a cop feels like arresting you.

If being hyperbolic: heh heh
If being serious: No they really can't

Yes, they really can. If they've decided those cuffs are going on, they're going on.

You're obviously free to resist, but don't be too surprised about the results. Better move is to just deal with it and tell it to the judge.

You do know that you can be put in cuffs without being arrested right?
/I don't think you do


Yes I obviously know this.

You know a cop can arrest you for any reason he likes, right?

Don't come back to me with some bullshiat about procedure. They feel absolutely no heat for false arrests, it's utterly meaningless to them.

I don't care if you cannot acknowledge reality. I encourage you to resist if you feel that a cop can't arrest you for some reason. Please let us know how it goes.
 
2013-06-19 11:04:27 AM  

Ant: Pichu0102: Holy crap, invade personal space much? Also, who the hell touches people while arguing with them?

It looked like he was trying to get the cop out of his way so he could leave.


Never push a cop, you'll flop like a drunken fish. As he did.
 
2013-06-19 11:05:43 AM  

ChaosStar: Really? Please point out where I said that, cause I never did.


Bolding is yours --

liam76: Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

ChaosStar: No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.


What the fark else could that possibly mean? I mean seriously, you're just being contrarian at this point and I've got better things to do than argue on the internet with somebody like you.

Good day.
 
2013-06-19 11:06:54 AM  

Coolfusis: How about you don't put your farking hands on people, and maybe things will stay calm?


How about the police keep these douchebags out of jail so the rest of the population doesn't have to pay for their bruised egos. These guys are supposed to be professional, they should be able to deal with some douchebag touching them in an assholish way without costing the taxpayer thousands of dollars if not more by arresting them and ultimately ruining their life so their potential earning power is squashed which causes even more losses. There was obviously nothing but the guy being a condescending douche he had no intention of harming that cop.
 
2013-06-19 11:09:11 AM  

Headso: yeah we are thinking of different scenarios, I am referring to the video this thread is about.


Sorry, but you don't get to put your hands on both sides of a cop. I see what you are saying, that you don't think he was going to apply force with his hands at any point, but we don't know if we was or not, and the police shouldn't have to give up positional advantage to people on the grounds that the people 'might not' use that.

That is where the cops are coming from.  You watch any video of cops getting killed, and more often than not it comes from letting people inch closer and closer and then making the move. I don't blame cops in the slightest for not giving up those inches. But I know, you watched thirty seconds of footage in the clip so you are absolutely sure the man, was bigger than any of the cops as well, was clearly just a harmless puppy dog.

He pointed behind the cop and then he tried to turn him. While turning someone around might qualify as harmless touching in many situations, turning a cop around when you are arguing with him, at least in my opinion, counts as off-limits touching.

Side note: this guy looked like one of the freedom anti-authority guys. On what authority is he physically touching anyone without permission?
 
2013-06-19 11:09:56 AM  

SuburbanCowboy: The guy was being a total dick to someone who had lost a child, but the cops shouldn't have tased him. If you can't take down a guy slightly larger than you all  by yourself, without using a potentially deadly weapon (and tasers do kill people) you shouldn't be allowed to be a cop.

That said, I wish these people who are so adamant about gun rights would apply that passion equally to other important social issues.


they do..have you ever been to an anti-abortion rally?
 
2013-06-19 11:10:44 AM  

liam76: ChaosStar: Let me rephrase, because I know how Farkers operate, it's not disturbing the peace if the disturbing the peace statue is constitutional. Many of them are vague and over-reaching so they turn out not to be.


If soemone is holding a legal gathering and you stroll in shouting over the speaker, crowding his podium you are not "quitely behaved" your actions are not "free from strife ro disorder" and in fact your behavior is "contentious or quarrelsome".

and in case you are wondering the italisized are exactly why it isn't protected.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peaceable


You go find the disturbing the peace statute pertaining to this town, read it, and see if his actions fit it. Chances are good if they do, the statute would be found unconstitutional. Your Websters dictionary definition is irrelevant.
Did you watch the video? He was asking the speaker questions about the speech he was giving because he thought he was being a mouth piece for Bloomingidiot's campaign. He wasn't "shouting over the speaker" or "crowding the podium". I already said what he was doing was annoying, and, if you're looking at it from an anti-gun point of view, not very polite but hardly disturbing the peace.
 
2013-06-19 11:12:37 AM  

Ant: Pichu0102: Holy crap, invade personal space much? Also, who the hell touches people while arguing with them?

It looked like he was trying to get the cop out of his way so he could leave.


It looked like he had no problem disturbing the peace until the cops showed up. At which time he decided to stop disturbing the peace and leave before the cops intervened.

Running away from the cops doesn't necessarily mean actually running.
 
2013-06-19 11:12:39 AM  

Donnchadha: ChaosStar: Really? Please point out where I said that, cause I never did.

Bolding is yours --

liam76: Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

ChaosStar: No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

What the fark else could that possibly mean? I mean seriously, you're just being contrarian at this point and I've got better things to do than argue on the internet with somebody like you.

Good day.


Could it possibly, just maybe, mean that he didn't break the law? That what he did wasn't disturbing the peace?
No, couldn't be that huh? It clearly means whatever words you put into my mouth.
Good day indeed.
 
2013-06-19 11:14:18 AM  

ChaosStar: Donnchadha: ChaosStar: Really? Please point out where I said that, cause I never did.

Bolding is yours --

liam76: Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

ChaosStar: No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

What the fark else could that possibly mean? I mean seriously, you're just being contrarian at this point and I've got better things to do than argue on the internet with somebody like you.

Good day.

Could it possibly, just maybe, mean that he didn't break the law? That what he did wasn't disturbing the peace?
No, couldn't be that huh? It clearly means whatever words you put into my mouth.
Good day indeed.


Doesn't matter, he can still be arrested. Do you understand the utility of our court system?
 
2013-06-19 11:14:34 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.

No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

Sure he could, you can get arrested simply because a cop feels like arresting you.

If being hyperbolic: heh heh
If being serious: No they really can't

Yes, they really can. If they've decided those cuffs are going on, they're going on.

You're obviously free to resist, but don't be too surprised about the results. Better move is to just deal with it and tell it to the judge.

You do know that you can be put in cuffs without being arrested right?
/I don't think you do

Yes I obviously know this.

You know a cop can arrest you for any reason he likes, right?

Don't come back to me with some bullshiat about procedure. They feel absolutely no heat for false arrests, it's utterly meaningless to them.

I don't care if you cannot acknowledge reality. I encourage you to resist if you feel that a cop can't arrest you for some reason. Please let us know how it goes.


You still don't know the difference between arrest and detain huh?
I know, I know, learning is hard for you, but please try ok? For me?
 
2013-06-19 11:14:43 AM  
I think I get it now...

"the police industrial complex is disgusting, militarization of police is ridiculous, private prisons for profit sentencing!"

story about about a protester you don't agree with is arrested for species reasons: "throw the bum in jail! dude can't put two fingers on a cop! that is an act of aggression! we have to think of their safety this single unarmed man with a beer gut could have karate kicked the whole police force!"

amirite?
 
2013-06-19 11:14:58 AM  

FARK rebel soldier: Police used an electronic stun gun
Are they really "electronic"? I thought they were electrical.


Well, yes, as they have a computer system to set up a recording device, measure battery levels, report error message, etc. :D


Headso: Coolfusis: How about you don't put your farking hands on people, and maybe things will stay calm?

How about the police keep these douchebags out of jail so the rest of the population doesn't have to pay for their bruised egos. These guys are supposed to be professional, they should be able to deal with some douchebag touching them in an assholish way without costing the taxpayer thousands of dollars if not more by arresting them and ultimately ruining their life so their potential earning power is squashed which causes even more losses. There was obviously nothing but the guy being a condescending douche he had no intention of harming that cop.


I'd be fine with tasing him, fining him, and releasing him.  But I don't think that's the "out of jail" solution you want.  You want the solution where cops have to let people walk up and touch them and they can't do anything about it.  That isn't going to happen.

Out of curiosity, if a cop has you terry stopped and orders you to remain seated 8 feet away from him, do you feel you should be able to stand up and walk right over to him? Maybe touch his shoulders lightly?
 
2013-06-19 11:16:01 AM  
fark specious reasons...heh at species reasons...
 
2013-06-19 11:17:26 AM  

Headso: I think I get it now...

"the police industrial complex is disgusting, militarization of police is ridiculous, private prisons for profit sentencing!"

story about about a protester you don't agree with is arrested for species reasons: "throw the bum in jail! dude can't put two fingers on a cop! that is an act of aggression! we have to think of their safety this single unarmed man with a beer gut could have karate kicked the whole police force!"

amirite?


Two questions:
1. Are you just yelling at clouds now?
2. What species does that person belong to, and how did it factor into his arrest? :P

Also, he was a pretty big guy, so hyperbole aside he was absolutely physically capable of causing harm (not that small people aren't also capable).
 
2013-06-19 11:17:27 AM  
Honest to god, and this is not a troll, can someone tell me WTF an "expanded background check" is? I have heard nothing about this except that it won't include mental health records. Sooooo, what the hell makes this any different than what we have now?
 
2013-06-19 11:18:01 AM  

Headso: fark specious reasons...heh at species reasons...


Bah, you caught it before me.
 
2013-06-19 11:18:02 AM  

ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: liam76: natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him


Even if he was trying to "walk away" he  could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

The inevitabel "assault" charge is BS.

No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

Sure he could, you can get arrested simply because a cop feels like arresting you.

If being hyperbolic: heh heh
If being serious: No they really can't

Yes, they really can. If they've decided those cuffs are going on, they're going on.

You're obviously free to resist, but don't be too surprised about the results. Better move is to just deal with it and tell it to the judge.

You do know that you can be put in cuffs without being arrested right?
/I don't think you do

Yes I obviously know this.

You know a cop can arrest you for any reason he likes, right?

Don't come back to me with some bullshiat about procedure. They feel absolutely no heat for false arrests, it's utterly meaningless to them.

I don't care if you cannot acknowledge reality. I encourage you to resist if you feel that a cop can't arrest you for some reason. Please let us know how it goes.

You still don't know the difference between arrest and detain huh?
I know, I know, learning is hard for you, but please try ok? For me?


Ah, so you are just a contrarian dick. Donnchadha had you pegged.
 
2013-06-19 11:18:29 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: Donnchadha: ChaosStar: Really? Please point out where I said that, cause I never did.

Bolding is yours --

liam76: Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

ChaosStar: No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

What the fark else could that possibly mean? I mean seriously, you're just being contrarian at this point and I've got better things to do than argue on the internet with somebody like you.

Good day.

Could it possibly, just maybe, mean that he didn't break the law? That what he did wasn't disturbing the peace?
No, couldn't be that huh? It clearly means whatever words you put into my mouth.
Good day indeed.

Doesn't matter, he can still be arrested. Do you understand the utility of our court system?


I again invite you to educate yourself further then come back.
 
2013-06-19 11:19:36 AM  

jayphat: Honest to god, and this is not a troll, can someone tell me WTF an "expanded background check" is? I have heard nothing about this except that it won't include mental health records. Sooooo, what the hell makes this any different than what we have now?


It would include private sales between two individuals in addition to all dealer sales.
 
2013-06-19 11:20:48 AM  

natas6.0: guy had his arms crossed and was trying to walk away
was even saying he was walking away..
blocked by police until he gave them a reason to arrest him

then the political tool starts talking about free speech
awesome


He statement about walking away referred to being at the podium. If you look at the video there is a wide open street behind him. If he wanted to all he had to do is turn around and walk but reached out and laid his hands on the cop in an attempt to turn him away.

Do you think his partner was trained to wait to see how far he was going to go or to respond immediately to the threat.
 
2013-06-19 11:20:57 AM  

ChaosStar: jayphat: Honest to god, and this is not a troll, can someone tell me WTF an "expanded background check" is? I have heard nothing about this except that it won't include mental health records. Sooooo, what the hell makes this any different than what we have now?

It would include private sales between two individuals in addition to all dealer sales.


And who pays for that? Because unless it's free, that's pretty contrary to the Doctrine of First Sale.
 
2013-06-19 11:21:28 AM  

Coolfusis: He didn't "just touch" the cop. He pushed on him to get him to move out of the way, enough to move the cop (even slightly). It was disrespectful and assholish - doing it in a non-cop situation would still probably escalate it to a violent confrontation.

How about you don't put your farking hands on people, and maybe things will stay calm?

Also, those cops need take down training. He was standing straight up, yet three of them had trouble taking him down. Use your weight and leverage to control him, don't just jump on his back and hang there.


He was trying to leave and they got in his way to stop him from leavIng. That is the issue
 
2013-06-19 11:22:01 AM  

ChaosStar: You go find the disturbing the peace statute pertaining to this town, read it, and see if his actions fit it. Chances are good if they do, the statute would be found unconstitutional.


So you think the first gives you the right to interupt any legally permitted gathering by standing next to the speaker, waving your hands betweent hem and their speech and talking over them?

ChaosStar: Your Websters dictionary definition is irrelevant.


Words mean things.  Sorry buddy.

ChaosStar: He was asking the speaker questions about the speech he was giving because he thought he was being a mouth piece for Bloomingidiot's campaign. He wasn't "shouting over the speaker" or "crowding the podium". I already said what he was doing was annoying, and, if you're looking at it from an anti-gun point of view, not very polite but hardly disturbing the peace


Yeah.  he was givingt he speech adn this clown walked up and talked over him loud enough that he could be heard over the microphone.  That fits "shouting over" in my book.  Of course my "book" rests on words having fixed meanings, not just what I want them to mean fro my pet causes.

As far as crowingt he podium if he is closer than anyone there associated with the speaker, and he is reaching his hands between the speaker and his speech, that is pretty clearly crowding.  I can't help you if you are too dumb or dishonest to see that.
 
2013-06-19 11:22:32 AM  

ChaosStar: HotWingConspiracy: ChaosStar: Donnchadha: ChaosStar: Really? Please point out where I said that, cause I never did.

Bolding is yours --

liam76: Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that.

ChaosStar: No, he really couldn't, but I'm to lazy to look everything up.

What the fark else could that possibly mean? I mean seriously, you're just being contrarian at this point and I've got better things to do than argue on the internet with somebody like you.

Good day.

Could it possibly, just maybe, mean that he didn't break the law? That what he did wasn't disturbing the peace?
No, couldn't be that huh? It clearly means whatever words you put into my mouth.
Good day indeed.

Doesn't matter, he can still be arrested. Do you understand the utility of our court system?

I again invite you to educate yourself further then come back.


I'm correct already.

Your boy here found out the hard way, though that dumb ass actually gave them cause to arrest him.
 
2013-06-19 11:25:51 AM  

Smackledorfer: Out of curiosity, if a cop has you terry stopped and orders you to remain seated 8 feet away from him, do you feel you should be able to stand up and walk right over to him? Maybe touch his shoulders lightly?


Every single situation should be dealt with individually, what if you are going to hand him some documentation and you are mistakenly under the impression he can handle that in a reasonable way and not taser you and slam you on the ground? In your view that person should be arrested right?
 
2013-06-19 11:26:00 AM  

jayphat: And who pays for that? Because unless it's free, that's pretty contrary to the Doctrine of First Sale


It is already the law of the land in many states (MD is one of them).

It isn't agaisnt first sale as the original owner gets nothing from it.


Warlordtrooper: He was trying to leave and they got in his way to stop him from leavIng.


You aren't excused from breaking the law just because you try and leave.

If he wanted to leave he probably didn't need to be arrested, but he did deserve a citation.
 
2013-06-19 11:27:52 AM  

max_pooper: dittybopper: leeto2: Simple rule I tell my kids:  Gun + Badge = wins.   You get pulled over by a cop you say, "yes sir, no sir," and you damned well better do it politely.  You want to argue, you go do it in court...period.

What's fun is white +50 males are now discovering that when it comes to protests, the cops don't like you.  And if you're dumb enough to touch one...in ANY way...you are gonna eat pavement.  Gun + badge = wins.

And yet, there were upwards of 12,000 people who protested the new NYS SAFE Act in downtown Albany a few months ago, and *ZERO* trouble.

Gun nuts with 1" rage boners care not about facts.


OK, first:  You're in violation of Markley's Law.  That means you automatically lose the argument by default.

Secondly, the people I was talking about were protesting against New York's stricter new gun law.

I have to assume you are trolling in some way because nobody is that offensively stupid in real life.  It's just impossible.
 
2013-06-19 12:25:19 PM  

Ker_Thwap: bullsballs: You have freedom of speech, unless we don't like what you have to say, subjects...

Hecklers should never speak the words "Freedom of Speech."   Shouting over someone is effectively denying their freedom of speech.  Tacky.


Funny how his supporters don't care that he was attempting to prevent someone else's freedom of speech because the speaker was attempting to say something they didn't want heard.
 
2013-06-19 12:27:22 PM  

dittybopper: nobody is that offensively stupid in real life



Dude, I got this.

If you are surrounded by cops, just tell them you know me.

Say, " I know vudukungfu"

Then repeat it louder, "I KNOW VUDUKUNGFU!"

Then show them your "O" face, which is the secret handshake all cops know.
 
2013-06-19 12:30:39 PM  

Ant: Pichu0102: Holy crap, invade personal space much? Also, who the hell touches people while arguing with them?

It looked like he was trying to get the cop out of his way so he could leave.


By pushing the cop.
 
2013-06-19 12:33:36 PM  

Maul555: TheOnion: After numerous interjections, Musso decided to walk away, but Concord police had been called. When officers began talking to him, Musso initiated physical contact with police, Sexton said.

Yup, headline really got the facts straight...

yeah, dud forgot that your never supposed to touch a cop...  He must be one of those hands-on/touchy kind of people...  More of them need to be tazed, i'm tired of that shiat...


I agree.  My belief is that you should never touch someone you don't know. If you don't know me, don't touch me.
 
2013-06-19 12:34:13 PM  
It didn't look at all to me that he was trying to get the cop out of his way so he could leave.  All he appeared to be trying to do was turn the cop ever so slightly so that the cop would see that a camera was recording behind him.
 
2013-06-19 12:34:19 PM  
"What kind of gun? A pellet gun, a machine gun - what kind of gun, sir?"

img.fark.net

Seems a bit more than heckling. And his buddies were armed.

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 12:37:03 PM  

liam76: So you think the first gives you the right to interupt any legally permitted gathering by standing next to the speaker, waving your hands betweent hem and their speech and talking over them?


Well, actually, yes you do.  That's why you hire event security to keep idiots like this away from the microphone, or lease out the property so that you can legally deny them entry.  Other than that, no one person has more of a right to speak, at any volume not otherwise restricted by noise ordinances, than any other person.  So yes, if you want to hold your little rally and didn't have enough foresight to block entry to counter protestors, I can get in your face with a bullhorn and have at it.
 
2013-06-19 12:40:52 PM  
I see that many people here are saying that you're a dumbass for even remotely touching a cop. It's true. You realize that these are dangerous people who look for any excuse they can to hurt you and you should just try your best to steer clear of them. You realize that they aren't necessarily there to protect people, but to find someone to physically dominate and ruin. I do wonder though if you realize this consciously or if you still support what these cops do through some sort of cognitive dissonance or just plain lack of morals or humanity.


With that said, the counter protester was way out of line when he went right up to the microphone to start shiat.
 
2013-06-19 12:41:29 PM  

jayphat: Honest to god, and this is not a troll, can someone tell me WTF an "expanded background check" is? I have heard nothing about this except that it won't include mental health records. Sooooo, what the hell makes this any different than what we have now?


From what I understand right now they just ask you if you are going to do anything naughty. Then check to see if you have any outstanding warrants or have ever been convicted of a felony.   But the expanded check is two fold.
- First, they want to check to see if you are crazy.  I would assume this would mean the gov't can read your medical records to see if you have been to a therapist or take mood altering drugs.
- Second, as mentioned above they want to stop private transfer of guns between normal people.  This would then mean that you would have to find an FFL dealer, pay him $20 or so and he would then do the federal paper work, including filing the above linked form.   If the gun nuts are to be believed, this would also include temporary ownership like training your kid with your 22 rifle, or borrowing your friends pistol for 5 minutes to see if you like that model.
 
2013-06-19 12:41:37 PM  

nmemkha: snuff3r: Why is this even news? Let alone one lasting as long as it did. The guy was an asshole. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but there's a way to do it and a way to be an asshole.

Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.

Yeah that's what he gets for mouthing off outside of a Free Speech Zone.

[img.fark.net image 850x1095]


You see, where you fail is that the guy in the painting is standing to be recognized in turn. The painting is equally representative of his seated neighbors, perhaps waiting their own turn, perhaps who disagree with him, who are not trying to shout him down or take his alotted time from him.
 
2013-06-19 12:45:19 PM  

Click Click D'oh: liam76: So you think the first gives you the right to interupt any legally permitted gathering by standing next to the speaker, waving your hands betweent hem and their speech and talking over them?

Well, actually, yes you do.  That's why you hire event security to keep idiots like this away from the microphone, or lease out the property so that you can legally deny them entry.  Other than that, no one person has more of a right to speak, at any volume not otherwise restricted by noise ordinances, than any other person.  So yes, if you want to hold your little rally and didn't have enough foresight to block entry to counter protestors, I can get in your face with a bullhorn and have at it.


So, wait a second, how does it make sense that the organizer/speaker at an event is not allowed to stop an interrupter from speaking, but his agent (the security "officer") is allowed to stop an interrupter from speaking?

Your logic has holes.  Makes as much sense as being forced to speak in order to remain silent.
 
2013-06-19 12:45:31 PM  

willfullyobscure: Free Stater. I'd buy those cops a beer if I could.

being an asshole should have consequences.


-1 / 10.  I'm the only person stupid enough to respond.  Being an asshole isn't illegal.
 
2013-06-19 12:49:53 PM  

Latinwolf: Funny how his supporters don't care that he was attempting to prevent someone else's freedom of speech because the speaker was attempting to say something they didn't want heard.


Isn't that right out of the Alinsky "Rules for Radicals"?  I know the leftist did this all the time when I went to  college.  I guess you reap what you sow.
 
2013-06-19 12:50:46 PM  

www.mediaite.com

"Did the big fat guy get an owie? Weak as water!"

 
2013-06-19 12:51:12 PM  

Click Click D'oh: liam76: So you think the first gives you the right to interupt any legally permitted gathering by standing next to the speaker, waving your hands betweent hem and their speech and talking over them?

Well, actually, yes you do.


No.  Maybe it was unclear but by "permitted" I ment had a permit, not just "allowed".

Click Click D'oh: That's why you hire event security to keep idiots like this away from the microphone,


If he was legally allowed to walk up there and do that then event security would have no legal right to stop him.

Click Click D'oh: or lease out the property so that you can legally deny them entry. Other than that, no one person has more of a right to speak, at any volume not otherwise restricted by noise ordinances, than any other person. So yes, if you want to hold your little rally and didn't have enough foresight to block entry to counter protestors, I can get in your face with a bullhorn and have at it



You saw the speakers, the huge banner, etc.  That makes it pretty clear they had a permit (govt or private group) to hold the rally.  You aren't allowed to shout down other people when they have legal permission to be there.

If you reserve a public pavillion for yoru kids soccer team to give out awards, or for a memorial service for yoru grandmother you don't need to hire security to block entrances from people who aren't welcome.  If someone comes up whenyou are giving away awards, or giving a speech and starts disturbing it, refuses to leave the police can and should arrest them.

Now if this was an impromptu speech, I would agree, but that is clearly not the case.
 
2013-06-19 12:58:51 PM  

PreMortem: Coincidentally, TIKTIIKKATIKKATIKKA is the middle name of my Makaa'n neighbor.


The local Indian buffet always runs out of the stuff during the lunch rush.
 
2013-06-19 12:59:59 PM  

Donnchadha: ChaosStar: Red light cameras? Really? You do know that apples and oranges are different right?

Let me slow it down for you....

In response to "Even if he was trying to "walk away" he could be arrested for disturbing the peace prior to that." you said "No, he really couldn't".

What you're saying is that the police would be unable to arrest the man because they did not witness the act. The fact that whatever he had done was done before the police arrived somehow prevented the police from taking action.

At this point, that statement is made with no knowledge or concern for what potential crime was being committed. It could have been disturbing the peace, jaywalking, assault, making terroristic threats -- it doesn't matter. If the police didn't witness it, they can't arrest him.

I pointed out that that is BS. If there's evidence (especially video evidence captured by a third party) that somebody committed a crime, the police can arrest/charge/cite you for it within the statute of limitations.


You should talk to the cops who refused to do anything about a hit and run driver who rear ended me.  There were independent witnesses who wrote down the license plate number.  There were pieces of the hit and run driver's vehicle stuck in my rear bumper.  The cops took a report, but said they weren't going to do anything about it because they didn't see it.
 
2013-06-19 01:01:36 PM  
The asshole was insulting a man speaking about his DEAD DAUGHTER. "Why are you shaking like that? It's not the truth" the guy says. The man is shaking because some lout is up in his face making fun of his emotions while speaking about his DEAD DAUGHTER. And when the police come, the asshole is SMILING! He's enjoying all this. And it was NOT a 'simple touch on the shoulders', he was TURNING THE COP AROUND, in a "you-just-go-play-over-there" way. Fark him.
 
2013-06-19 01:01:46 PM  

jayphat: ChaosStar: jayphat: Honest to god, and this is not a troll, can someone tell me WTF an "expanded background check" is? I have heard nothing about this except that it won't include mental health records. Sooooo, what the hell makes this any different than what we have now?

It would include private sales between two individuals in addition to all dealer sales.

And who pays for that? Because unless it's free, that's pretty contrary to the Doctrine of First Sale.


Currently there is no charge for a FFL to run a FBI NICS (background) check on you.
There is no system for a civilian to check the background of a buyer as of yet
 
2013-06-19 01:03:46 PM  

liam76: ChaosStar: You go find the disturbing the peace statute pertaining to this town, read it, and see if his actions fit it. Chances are good if they do, the statute would be found unconstitutional.

So you think the first gives you the right to interupt any legally permitted gathering by standing next to the speaker, waving your hands betweent hem and their speech and talking over them?

ChaosStar: Your Websters dictionary definition is irrelevant.

Words mean things.  Sorry buddy.

ChaosStar: He was asking the speaker questions about the speech he was giving because he thought he was being a mouth piece for Bloomingidiot's campaign. He wasn't "shouting over the speaker" or "crowding the podium". I already said what he was doing was annoying, and, if you're looking at it from an anti-gun point of view, not very polite but hardly disturbing the peace

Yeah.  he was givingt he speech adn this clown walked up and talked over him loud enough that he could be heard over the microphone.  That fits "shouting over" in my book.  Of course my "book" rests on words having fixed meanings, not just what I want them to mean fro my pet causes.

As far as crowingt he podium if he is closer than anyone there associated with the speaker, and he is reaching his hands between the speaker and his speech, that is pretty clearly crowding.  I can't help you if you are too dumb or dishonest to see that.


If the First doesn't, why is the WBC still in business?
Words can mean more/lesser things when it comes to laws, sorry buddy.
"talked over him loud enough that he could be heard over the microphone " Do you know how microphones work?
"In my book" is not (thankfully) a legal measure when determining if someone has broken a law or not. "In my book" he raised his voice to be heard by the speaker over the noise of the assembled crowd and when he was "reaching his hands" to the speech he was pretty clearly pointing at it for reference and not trying to block the speakers view.
Lets not let the facts get in the way of your imagined superiority though right?
 
2013-06-19 01:04:19 PM  

snuff3r: Why is this even news? Let alone one lasting as long as it did. The guy was an asshole. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but there's a way to do it and a way to be an asshole.

Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.

 
2013-06-19 01:04:45 PM  
HotWingConspiracy:

Your boy here found out the hard way, though that dumb ass actually gave them cause to arrest him.

but I thought, according to you, they didn't need cause?
I know, I know, you're going to backpedal here and say they could have arrested him even without cause, completely contradicting what you just said.
Yet I'm the contentious one.
 
2013-06-19 01:06:07 PM  

nmemkha: snuff3r: Why is this even news? Let alone one lasting as long as it did. The guy was an asshole. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but there's a way to do it and a way to be an asshole.

Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.

Yeah that's what he gets for mouthing off outside of a Free Speech Zone.

[img.fark.net image 850x1095]


Moron.

No, seriously. You're equating "a man talking at a town hall meeting, following the rules to speak his piece as a citizen" to "an asshole interrupting a public speech, ignoring the rules to verbally confront the speaker, then giving cops crap when asked to leave."

The asshole isn't a victim - stop trying to martyr him.
 
2013-06-19 01:13:41 PM  

MonoChango: jayphat: Honest to god, and this is not a troll, can someone tell me WTF an "expanded background check" is? I have heard nothing about this except that it won't include mental health records. Sooooo, what the hell makes this any different than what we have now?

From what I understand right now they just ask you if you are going to do anything naughty. Then check to see if you have any outstanding warrants or have ever been convicted of a felony.   But the expanded check is two fold.
- First, they want to check to see if you are crazy.  I would assume this would mean the gov't can read your medical records to see if you have been to a therapist or take mood altering drugs.
- Second, as mentioned above they want to stop private transfer of guns between normal people.  This would then mean that you would have to find an FFL dealer, pay him $20 or so and he would then do the federal paper work, including filing the above linked form.   If the gun nuts are to be believed, this would also include temporary ownership like training your kid with your 22 rifle, or borrowing your friends pistol for 5 minutes to see if you like that model.


United States v Olofson
He loaned his AR-15 to a friend who, while firing it at a range, caused it to malfunction and fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull before jamming. He was convicted of transferring an unregistered machine gun.
Tell me again how we're nuts to worry about temporary ownership and loaning/borrowing?
 
2013-06-19 01:13:59 PM  
Submit NOW to your betters, "citizen"!
 
2013-06-19 01:14:21 PM  
Meh. Coulda been worse. The speaker he was interrupting could have turned and shot him.

That would've settled his hash pretty good...
 
2013-06-19 01:17:50 PM  

ChaosStar: If the First doesn't, why is the WBC still in business?


Point me to the video where the WBC enters a permitted gathering, gets in betweent eh speaker and his notes with their hands, and talks over the speaker?

Get it?  Probably not, given your performance so far.  I will try and make it simpler for you.

They go and hold signs peacefully they don't interrupt anyone, they don't crowd podiums, they generally stand on sidewalks.

Are you still too dumb to see the difference?


ChaosStar: Words can mean more/lesser things when it comes to laws, sorry buddy.


The meaning of peaceable has not been altered by any court ruling.

ChaosStar: Do you know how microphones work?


Yeah, and if I heard him over the speaker he was shouting over him.


ChaosStar: "In my book" he raised his voice to be heard by the speaker over the noise of the assembled crowd


So when you go to a premitted gathering where they are there to listen to a speaker and you raise your voice so they can hear you and not the speaker that isn't disturbing the peace?

Are you really so mindnumbingly stupid that you think "peaceably" means shout over anyone, no matter if they have permission to perform or give a speech there?  Is this the level of stupidity I am dealing with?  If there is a concert in the park do you think any bozo is allowed to wander up to the stage and yell over the perfromers?

ChaosStar: he was "reaching his hands" to the speech he was pretty clearly pointing at it for reference and not trying to block the speakers view.


So he was close enough to point out words int he speech for "reference" but he wasn't crowding the podium?  Jesus you are a farking idiot.

And I don't care what his intention was the fact remian he was coming between the speaker and the notes the speaker was looking at for his speech.  You really need to be dick in the toaster stupid to think that isn't crowding him.
 
2013-06-19 01:18:12 PM  

gfid: You should talk to the cops who refused to do anything about a hit and run driver who rear ended me. There were independent witnesses who wrote down the license plate number. There were pieces of the hit and run driver's vehicle stuck in my rear bumper. The cops took a report, but said they weren't going to do anything about it because they didn't see it.


I was careful to stick to "can" and "could". It doesn't mean you won't find lazy cops who don't want to fill out all that paperwork.
 
2013-06-19 01:20:21 PM  

dittybopper: cwheelie: And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.

What, you mean like Mayor Bloomberg's personal bodyguard?


Holy shiat. Why is this guy not in jail for felony possession of a firearm? Oh, that's right... He has a boss with a lot of pull to keep him out of prison. Silly me, thinking that we still have a viable legal system.
 
2013-06-19 01:21:30 PM  

liam76: Click Click D'oh: liam76: So you think the first gives you the right to interupt any legally permitted gathering by standing next to the speaker, waving your hands betweent hem and their speech and talking over them?

Well, actually, yes you do.

No.  Maybe it was unclear but by "permitted" I ment had a permit, not just "allowed".

Click Click D'oh: That's why you hire event security to keep idiots like this away from the microphone,

If he was legally allowed to walk up there and do that then event security would have no legal right to stop him.

Click Click D'oh: or lease out the property so that you can legally deny them entry. Other than that, no one person has more of a right to speak, at any volume not otherwise restricted by noise ordinances, than any other person. So yes, if you want to hold your little rally and didn't have enough foresight to block entry to counter protestors, I can get in your face with a bullhorn and have at it


You saw the speakers, the huge banner, etc.  That makes it pretty clear they had a permit (govt or private group) to hold the rally.  You aren't allowed to shout down other people when they have legal permission to be there.

If you reserve a public pavillion for yoru kids soccer team to give out awards, or for a memorial service for yoru grandmother you don't need to hire security to block entrances from people who aren't welcome.  If someone comes up whenyou are giving away awards, or giving a speech and starts disturbing it, refuses to leave the police can and should arrest them.

Now if this was an impromptu speech, I would agree, but that is clearly not the case.


liam76: Click Click D'oh: liam76: So you think the first gives you the right to interupt any legally permitted gathering by standing next to the speaker, waving your hands betweent hem and their speech and talking over them?

Well, actually, yes you do.

No.  Maybe it was unclear but by "permitted" I ment had a permit, not just "allowed".

Click Click D'oh: That's why you hire event security to keep idiots like this away from the microphone,

If he was legally allowed to walk up there and do that then event security would have no legal right to stop him.

Click Click D'oh: or lease out the property so that you can legally deny them entry. Other than that, no one person has more of a right to speak, at any volume not otherwise restricted by noise ordinances, than any other person. So yes, if you want to hold your little rally and didn't have enough foresight to block entry to counter protestors, I can get in your face with a bullhorn and have at it


You saw the speakers, the huge banner, etc.  That makes it pretty clear they had a permit (govt or private group) to hold the rally.  You aren't allowed to shout down other people when they have legal permission to be there.

If you reserve a public pavillion for yoru kids soccer team to give out awards, or for a memorial service for yoru grandmother you don't need to hire security to block entrances from people who aren't welcome.  If someone comes up whenyou are giving away awards, or giving a speech and starts disturbing it, refuses to leave the police can and should arrest them.

Now if this was an impromptu speech, I would agree, but that is clearly not the case.


/sigh
You just keep trying to force that round peg into the square hole don't you?
Just because it doesn't spring up like a flash mob, has speakers, banners, etc doesn't mean it has a permit. I direct you to the OWS protests and various other protests throughout the years.

If you reserve public property, it's still public property. If someone comes up, you can ask them to leave but you can't have them arrested if they don't because it's /public/ property. Right to peacefully assemble and such.
 
2013-06-19 01:22:30 PM  
I think it's fair for the cops to be extremely protective of their personal space. They are, after all, wearing a belt with a gun, taser, cuffs, etc attached. If someone is close enough to give them a shoulder rub, they are close enough to try to get the cop's gun. Regardless of how unlikely it might be for someone to successfully unholster a cop's gun and shoot him with it, you can see how they would be touchy about any opening for that possibility.

If you touch a cop and he tases you, honestly I don't have a problem with that.
 
2013-06-19 01:26:13 PM  

nmemkha: Yeah that's what he gets for mouthing off outside of a Free Speech Zone.


img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 01:28:48 PM  

liam76: ChaosStar: If the First doesn't, why is the WBC still in business?

Point me to the video where the WBC enters a permitted gathering, gets in betweent eh speaker and his notes with their hands, and talks over the speaker?

Get it?  Probably not, given your performance so far.  I will try and make it simpler for you.

They go and hold signs peacefully they don't interrupt anyone, they don't crowd podiums, they generally stand on sidewalks.

Are you still too dumb to see the difference?


ChaosStar: Words can mean more/lesser things when it comes to laws, sorry buddy.

The meaning of peaceable has not been altered by any court ruling.

ChaosStar: Do you know how microphones work?

Yeah, and if I heard him over the speaker he was shouting over him.


ChaosStar: "In my book" he raised his voice to be heard by the speaker over the noise of the assembled crowd

So when you go to a premitted gathering where they are there to listen to a speaker and you raise your voice so they can hear you and not the speaker that isn't disturbing the peace?

Are you really so mindnumbingly stupid that you think "peaceably" means shout over anyone, no matter if they have permission to perform or give a speech there?  Is this the level of stupidity I am dealing with?  If there is a concert in the park do you think any bozo is allowed to wander up to the stage and yell over the perfromers?

ChaosStar: he was "reaching his hands" to the speech he was pretty clearly pointing at it for reference and not trying to block the speakers view.

So he was close enough to point out words int he speech for "reference" but he wasn't crowding the podium?  Jesus you are a farking idiot.

And I don't care what his intention was the fact remian he was coming between the speaker and the notes the speaker was looking at for his speech.  You really need to be dick in the toaster stupid to think that isn't crowding him.


"they don't interrupt anyone "
I know some bikers and servicemen families who would disagree with you.
The WBC goes and holds signs, shouts slurs, literally screams at the top of their lungs hateful rhetoric. They get a pass from you when it comes to disturbing the peace apparently.

You keep saying "permitted" like it's some magic shield. Do you have their application in your hand or are you just assuming they had one? It's not even relevant if they did.

"Are you really so mindnumbingly stupid that you think "peaceably" means shout over anyone "
Apparently you do, since you think the WBC is within the confines of the disturbing the peace statues.

I'm not even gonna bother anymore, your logic and critical thinking skills are obviously nonexistent.
 
2013-06-19 01:30:17 PM  

ChaosStar: Just because it doesn't spring up like a flash mob, has speakers, banners, etc doesn't mean it has a permit. I direct you to the OWS protests and various other protests throughout the years.


You think Mayors against illegal guns sprung up like OWS?


ChaosStar: If you reserve public property, it's still public property. If someone comes up, you can ask them to leave but you can't have them arrested if they don't because it's /public/ property. Right to peacefully assemble and such


I guess public property is another concept you don't understand but will argue about at length?

Public property is often set aside for specific uses and if you are using it for something else you can be arrested.

See: public concerts, fairs on public ground, etc.
 
2013-06-19 01:35:37 PM  
 
2013-06-19 01:37:47 PM  

CommiePuddin: So, wait a second, how does it make sense that the organizer/speaker at an event is not allowed to stop an interrupter from speaking, but his agent (the security "officer") is allowed to stop an interrupter from speaking?

Your logic has holes.


No, it's your experience that has holes.  Security can't prevent someone from speaking, but they can prevent them from getting up next to a speaker and disrupting him.  Notice how after the heckler leaves the stage a group of people with signs crowd in so no one can pull that bit again.  If these stooges were competent, they would have had a similar arrangement in place to start.

liam76: No. Maybe it was unclear but by "permitted" I ment had a permit, not just "allowed".


Having a permit in no way protects you from hecklers or guarantees someone won't set up across the street and drown you out.  A permit does not guarantee your right to be heard, it simply states that you are in compliance with a controlling governing body.

liam76: If he was legally allowed to walk up there and do that then event security would have no legal right to stop him.


See above.  We do this sort of security all the time.

liam76: You saw the speakers, the huge banner, etc. That makes it pretty clear they had a permit (govt or private group) to hold the rally. You aren't allowed to shout down other people when they have legal permission to be there.


Says who?

liam76: f you reserve a public pavillion for yoru kids soccer team to give out awards, or for a memorial service for yoru grandmother you don't need to hire security to block entrances from people who aren't welcome. If someone comes up whenyou are giving away awards, or giving a speech and starts disturbing it, refuses to leave the police can and should arrest them.


Arrest them for what?  Being in a public location?  You better have up some notification that it's a private event and that the public is not allowed, oh... and you better do something to actively control access.  Then at most you will get a trespass warning, which is usually a ticket offense, not an arrestable one.
 
2013-06-19 01:38:42 PM  

ChaosStar: I know some bikers and servicemen families who would disagree with you.
The WBC goes and holds signs, shouts slurs, literally screams at the top of their lungs hateful rhetoric.


I have never seen them shout anything (quick search showed 1 time in 08 where four women were shouting, but I don' tthink that is their ususal MO).

I may be wrong, but I know they have never done it at an event where another group had a permit to speak, otherwise theyw oudl be breakingt he law.


ChaosStar: They get a pass from you when it comes to disturbing the peace apparently.


From me?  No.  From the US constitution as interpreted by the supreme court?  Yes.

I actually disagreed with striking down the law that would have barred them from being within X feet of funerals and funeral processions.  IMHO once they begin targeting non-public figures it crosses itno harassment territoty.


ChaosStar: You keep saying "permitted" like it's some magic shield. Do you have their application in your hand or are you just assuming they had one?


Don't need it in my hand. The group is fairly popular nad have ahd a coupel of events it is really dumb to assume they were just winging it.

ChaosStar: It's not even relevant if they did.

So a random guy setting up a concert in a public park is going to have the same issues with the law as a group that gets a legal permit to hld a concert in a public park?  Ok Genius.


ChaosStar: Apparently you do, since you think the WBC is within the confines of the disturbing the peace statues.


You seem to be well versed on WBC.  You have to be really dumb or intentionally obtuse to miss how they are very good abotu getting permits and sue counties whent hey don't get them based on their message.
 
2013-06-19 01:39:54 PM  

MonoChango: - Second, as mentioned above they want to stop private transfer of guns between normal people.  This would then mean that you would have to find an FFL dealer, pay him $20 or so and he would then do the federal paper work, including filing the above linked form.   If the gun nuts are to be believed, this would also include temporary ownership like training your kid with your 22 rifle, or borrowing your friends pistol for 5 minutes to see if you like that model.


I'm not a gun nut.  I don't even own a gun, but that's pretty much what recently passed the CO state legislature.

There are a few problems here.  First of all, why should a FFL dealer go out of his way to do all the paperwork for even $20 if he's not the one selling you the gun?  If he farks up one teeny part of the forms he can lose his license and potentially be charged with a crime.  It may be worth it to the FFL dealer if he's selling you a gun, but why would he want to go to all that trouble and risk his license for $20?

And yeah, the law also prohibits transfer of clips which could be expanded to hold more than 9 bullets.  So if husband goes away on business, he can leave his wife with his gun to protect herself, but not the clip.  But I'm sure the next psychopath on a killing spree will respect the law, right?
 
2013-06-19 01:41:34 PM  
"STOP hitting my billy club with your head!  And STOP hitting my fist with your face!  And did you see that!  DID YOU!  His testicles Viciously attacked my instep!  You don't DESERVE Miranda rights until you stop BLEEDING on me!  I told you to STOP BLEEDING!  That's assaulting an officer!"
 
2013-06-19 01:44:29 PM  
He was leaving. The cops escalated the conflict by stopping him.
 
2013-06-19 01:45:44 PM  

ChaosStar: Lets not let the facts get in the way of your imagined superiority though right?


You haven't let the facts get in the way of your derp yet.

It's impressive, though. For a while I thought you were going excessive on the doubling-down of stupidity, but it looks like you're trying (and rather successfully) to fit in a full set of logical fallacies.

/Salute for your effort
 
2013-06-19 01:47:17 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Having a permit in no way protects you from hecklers or guarantees someone won't set up across the street and drown you out. A permit does not guarantee your right to be heard, it simply states that you are in compliance with a controlling governing body.


And if he was across the street he woudl be in the clear legally.


Click Click D'oh: See above. We do this sort of security all the time


Who is we?  And what sort?  You routinely block peopel from public places you don't have a permit to control?  I am nto sure what you are refering to here.


Click Click D'oh: Arrest them for what? Being in a public location? You better have up some notification that it's a private event and that the public is not allowed, oh... and you better do something to actively control access. Then at most you will get a trespass warning, which is usually a ticket offense, not an arrestable one


A public location doesn't mena complete free access to the public at all times.

An event doesn't have to be "private" for you not to be allowed to mosey on up to the podium in the middle of a speech and try and shout down the speaker without running into a disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace charge.

You will get a trespass if you are just hanging out there after being asked to leave.  If you were actively disrupting it, like this guy was, you will get more.  I would agree that is ususally just a ticketable offense, but givenhow he acted whent he cops approached him, I got no problem with the arrest.

They have public concerts near me in the summer.  If I were to do to the performers what he did to the speaker I woudl be arrested.  This is no different.
 
2013-06-19 01:47:35 PM  

ChaosStar: If there is a concert in the park do you think any bozo is allowed to wander up to the stage and yell over the perfromers?


My old boss use to drag me to concerts all over the place. Bastard dragged me to one of the last dead shows ever. Right. I had never seen the dead and really didn't want to go, but it was a day off work, and his wife would buy all my beer, so I went. Just as the show is starting this dude who had been passed out on the grass woke up and started whooping real loud. It was annoying as fark, and I was going to go over an knock him cold, but I had like five farking hippies holding me back because they were against violence. Farking asshole had it coming to him. They wouldn't let me near him, so I told them I would just walk away and go listen somewhere else. I had to wait for the third set for that dickhead to wander over to the portajohns, but by then, I had bought a fine combination lock over at shakedown street. The rest is lysergic history. I don't know how, if ever he got out of that portajohn. I don't care. But I didn't hit him.
 
2013-06-19 01:53:48 PM  

Carousel Beast: ChaosStar: Lets not let the facts get in the way of your imagined superiority though right?

You haven't let the facts get in the way of your derp yet.

It's impressive, though. For a while I thought you were going excessive on the doubling-down of stupidity, but it looks like you're trying (and rather successfully) to fit in a full set of logical fallacies.

/Salute for your effort


Please see Click Click D'oh's post above for why I'm not wrong and neither is my logic and then apologize for your derp.
/no I'm not really expecting you to apologize
 
2013-06-19 01:56:09 PM  

ChaosStar: MonoChango: jayphat: Honest to god, and this is not a troll, can someone tell me WTF an "expanded background check" is? I have heard nothing about this except that it won't include mental health records. Sooooo, what the hell makes this any different than what we have now?

From what I understand right now they just ask you if you are going to do anything naughty. Then check to see if you have any outstanding warrants or have ever been convicted of a felony.   But the expanded check is two fold.
- First, they want to check to see if you are crazy.  I would assume this would mean the gov't can read your medical records to see if you have been to a therapist or take mood altering drugs.
- Second, as mentioned above they want to stop private transfer of guns between normal people.  This would then mean that you would have to find an FFL dealer, pay him $20 or so and he would then do the federal paper work, including filing the above linked form.   If the gun nuts are to be believed, this would also include temporary ownership like training your kid with your 22 rifle, or borrowing your friends pistol for 5 minutes to see if you like that model.

United States v Olofson
He loaned his AR-15 to a friend who, while firing it at a range, caused it to malfunction and fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull before jamming. He was convicted of transferring an unregistered machine gun.
Tell me again how we're nuts to worry about temporary ownership and loaning/borrowing?


The ATF had to use tools on the "malfunctioning" AR in order to get it to malfunction again because they could not reproduce the malfunction by themselves.

Did the AR malfunction by itself or did working on the AR with tools allow the gun to malfunction again.

Evidence was obviously altered from its original state via tools.
 
2013-06-19 01:58:44 PM  

liam76: And if he was across the street he woudl be in the clear legally.


He was also in the clear legally where he was.  That he was able to gain access to the speaker is just piss poor planning on the part of the event organizer and not because of some illegal act on the part of the heckler.

liam76: Who is we? And what sort? You routinely block peopel from public places you don't have a permit to control? I am nto sure what you are refering to here.


We as in my security company, which routinely provides security services for public events at which we provide access control services specifically intended to prevent this sort of disruption.

liam76: A public location doesn't mena complete free access to the public at all times.


Well duh.  See my above qualifications.

liam76: An event doesn't have to be "private" for you not to be allowed to mosey on up to the podium in the middle of a speech and try and shout down the speaker without running into a disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace charge.


You are going to have to reference a specific law to support that theory, because I have yet to see a Disorderly, or Disrupting code that singles out heckling at public events.

liam76: You will get a trespass if you are just hanging out there after being asked to leave.


Only if that person has the legal authority to tell you to do so.  Some other guy who happened to be in the park too doesn't have the legal authority to tell you to leave.  The property owner or an agent of the property owner does, but not always.  For instance, public property, such as parks can't direct you to leave unless you are violating their code of conduct or hours of operation.

liam76: If you were actively disrupting it, like this guy was, you will get more.


Get what?  Specific legal code.  I want to see an actual law that says you can't disrupt a speech in a public place.

liam76: I got no problem with the arrest.


He was arrested because he was stupid enough to touch a cop, not because he was heckling.  All I saw before he touched the officer was an investigative detention, which the police could easily justify by saying that the persons behavior caused them to suspect he was under the influence of narcotics or EDP.

liam76: They have public concerts near me in the summer. If I were to do to the performers what he did to the speaker I woudl be arrested.


I suspect you would have to muscle past a couple of guys  in yellow shirts to get on the stage.  By muscling past them you've made unwanted contact with them and they arresting you for assault or battery (depending on local ord.), not for heckling.
 
2013-06-19 02:01:25 PM  
You know what, if there's going to be police brutality (and there will be), I'd rather it be against people like this.

/fark em'
 
2013-06-19 02:06:50 PM  
Anyone else remember when the constitution was meant to protect the people that we didn't like?
 
2013-06-19 02:08:24 PM  

washington-babylon: dittybopper: cwheelie: And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.

What, you mean like Mayor Bloomberg's personal bodyguard?

Holy shiat. Why is this guy not in jail for felony possession of a firearm? Oh, that's right... He has a boss with a lot of pull to keep him out of prison. Silly me, thinking that we still have a viable legal system.


the rich have different rules.....
 
2013-06-19 02:10:11 PM  

joeshill: Anyone else remember when the constitution was meant to protect the people that we didn't like?


He was arrested by reactionary cops who like to waste taxpayer money with stupid charges not for anything speech related.
 
2013-06-19 02:10:39 PM  

joeshill: Anyone else remember when the constitution was meant to protect the people that we didn't like?


thunderbird8804: You know what, if there's going to be police brutality (and there will be), I'd rather it be against people like this.

/fark em'

 
2013-06-19 02:16:47 PM  

Click Click D'oh: He was also in the clear legally where he was. That he was able to gain access to the speaker is just piss poor planning on the part of the event organizer and not because of some illegal act on the part of the heckler.


Sorry but you are wrong.  Distrubing the peace doesn't require a security rope or guards.

They had  apermit for this rally, and he entered the rally and was going out of his way to disrupt the rally.  That is disturbing the peace.


Click Click D'oh: Well duh. See my above qualifications.


You don't need the security to make it illegal to interfere with a permitted event.


Click Click D'oh: For instance, public property, such as parks can't direct you to leave unless you are violating their code of conduct or hours of operation.


Or if you have reserved the park.


Click Click D'oh: Get what? Specific legal code. I want to see an actual law that says you can't disrupt a speech in a public place.


If some random guy is speaking, you can.  If they have reserved the area for the speech and you disrupt it that is the textbook defintion of disturbing the peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disturbing_the_peace

Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.If they had a permit for their rally then the speech was part of the public order, if he was disrupting it he was disturbing the peace.

Click Click D'oh: He was arrested because he was stupid enough to touch a cop, not because he was heckling. All I saw before he touched the officer was an investigative detention, which the police could easily justify by saying that the persons behavior caused them to suspect he was under the influence of narcotics or EDP.


The police could justify it becasue they saw him disturbing the peace.

Click Click D'oh: I suspect you would have to muscle past a couple of guys in yellow shirts to get on the stage. By muscling past them you've made unwanted contact with them and they arresting you for assault or battery (depending on local ord.), not for heckling.


Nope.  It is a stage, about a foot off the ground I can walk on to.  No security.  I have seen people arrested for dancing and yelling in front of it (during a classical music show).  No ropes were crossed, no security shouldered.
 
2013-06-19 02:18:45 PM  
Maybe the guy was just pissed because Mayor Bloomberg's organization thinks Tamerlan Tsarnaev is a victim of gun violence:

The event had people supporting the Mayors Against Illegal Guns movement, founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, reading the names of those "killed with guns" since the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary outside their "No More Names" bus.
...
Some of the loudest shouts came when a reader spoke the name of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects who was killed by police during a gunfight.

"He's a terrorist," several protesters shouted.
 
2013-06-19 02:19:39 PM  

Giltric: ChaosStar: MonoChango: jayphat: Honest to god, and this is not a troll, can someone tell me WTF an "expanded background check" is? I have heard nothing about this except that it won't include mental health records. Sooooo, what the hell makes this any different than what we have now?

From what I understand right now they just ask you if you are going to do anything naughty. Then check to see if you have any outstanding warrants or have ever been convicted of a felony.   But the expanded check is two fold.
- First, they want to check to see if you are crazy.  I would assume this would mean the gov't can read your medical records to see if you have been to a therapist or take mood altering drugs.
- Second, as mentioned above they want to stop private transfer of guns between normal people.  This would then mean that you would have to find an FFL dealer, pay him $20 or so and he would then do the federal paper work, including filing the above linked form.   If the gun nuts are to be believed, this would also include temporary ownership like training your kid with your 22 rifle, or borrowing your friends pistol for 5 minutes to see if you like that model.

United States v Olofson
He loaned his AR-15 to a friend who, while firing it at a range, caused it to malfunction and fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull before jamming. He was convicted of transferring an unregistered machine gun.
Tell me again how we're nuts to worry about temporary ownership and loaning/borrowing?

The ATF had to use tools on the "malfunctioning" AR in order to get it to malfunction again because they could not reproduce the malfunction by themselves.

Did the AR malfunction by itself or did working on the AR with tools allow the gun to malfunction again.

Evidence was obviously altered from its original state via tools.


Once the weapon jammed and malfunctioned, it doesn't just magically fix itself.  Someone had to get some tools out and fix it.  Doesn't matter anyway.  The reason Olofson was convicted was because he knew the gun had an unmarked setting that fired multiple times per pull but still he loaned it to someone anyway.  He even told the loanee about it.  That's how the gun jammed.  The loanee put it in the unmarked multiple-fire setting that Olofson told him about.  Pretty straight forward case.
 
2013-06-19 02:20:58 PM  

liam76: Click Click D'oh: I suspect you would have to muscle past a couple of guys in yellow shirts to get on the stage. By muscling past them you've made unwanted contact with them and they arresting you for assault or battery (depending on local ord.), not for heckling.

Nope. It is a stage, about a foot off the ground I can walk on to. No security. I have seen people arrested for dancing and yelling in front of it (during a classical music show). No ropes were crossed, no security shouldered.


Lets re-visit this.  Lets pretend you are right and I could only be arrested in a case like this for bumping into guards.  What would your security company do if I was in an event and whipped out a bullhorn, or just started shouting over the main attraction?
 
2013-06-19 02:32:13 PM  

Giltric: The ATF had to use tools on the "malfunctioning" AR in order to get it to malfunction again because they could not reproduce the malfunction by themselves.

Did the AR malfunction by itself or did working on the AR with tools allow the gun to malfunction again.

Evidence was obviously altered from its original state via tools.


Hey are you saying that the US government would manufacture evidence against someone?  You must be some sort of nut!  Next you will tell me the NSA is reading all my internet packets, that my IRS audit was politically motivated and the FBI is running guns to Mexican drug lords.  Obviously you are just a crazy gun nut person.  ;-)
 
2013-06-19 02:35:42 PM  

dittybopper: Maybe the guy was just pissed because Mayor Bloomberg's organization thinks Tamerlan Tsarnaev is a victim of gun violence:


No, he wanted to know what gun the speaker's daughter was shot with.

/was tamerlan mentioned as a victim or perpetrator?
 
2013-06-19 02:43:02 PM  
 
2013-06-19 02:47:12 PM  

snuff3r: Why is this even news? Let alone one lasting as long as it did. The guy was an asshole. Everyone's entitled to their opinions but there's a way to do it and a way to be an asshole.

Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.


Because we mundanes are not good enough to TOUCH a cop, it's that simple. know your betters, maggot.
 
2013-06-19 03:02:49 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: dittybopper: Maybe the guy was just pissed because Mayor Bloomberg's organization thinks Tamerlan Tsarnaev is a victim of gun violence:

No, he wanted to know what gun the speaker's daughter was shot with.

/was tamerlan mentioned as a victim or perpetrator?

Ah.

Alex Katz, the deputy communications director for Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Bloomberg's office, apologized for the inclusion.

"Mayors Against Illegal Guns relied on the public list compiled by Slate.com entitled 'How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?', and his name was on the list," Katz said in an email. "He was absolutely not a victim, his name should have been deleted before the list was provided to a family member for reading and his name should never have been read. It was a mistake, it should not have happened and we sincerely apologize."


But if they aren't checking that list, to see who actually was killed by the police, or who was killed in the act of committing a felony, or killed in righteous self-defense shootings, then why should we believe them?

I mean, seriously, the reader didn't catch that before saying it?
 
2013-06-19 03:13:54 PM  

SuburbanCowboy: That said, I wish these people who are so adamant about gun rights would apply that passion equally to other important social issues.


So you're saying that our rights aren't important, and that some other cause - any cause except gun rights - is more deserving of their attention?  While I'm sorry that you have acquiesced and chosen not to give a fark about your own rights, many others are not of similar disposition. Is it ok for supporters of other causes that you happen to feel are more important to be exclusively focused only on those causes? Thought so.

/Rude as$shat exercising free speech is rude
//Free speech is still free speech
///Support ALL rights - not just the ones you agree with
 
2013-06-19 03:18:38 PM  

dittybopper: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: dittybopper: Maybe the guy was just pissed because Mayor Bloomberg's organization thinks Tamerlan Tsarnaev is a victim of gun violence:

No, he wanted to know what gun the speaker's daughter was shot with.

/was tamerlan mentioned as a victim or perpetrator?

Ah.

Alex Katz, the deputy communications director for Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Bloomberg's office, apologized for the inclusion.

"Mayors Against Illegal Guns relied on the public list compiled by Slate.com entitled 'How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?', and his name was on the list," Katz said in an email. "He was absolutely not a victim, his name should have been deleted before the list was provided to a family member for reading and his name should never have been read. It was a mistake, it should not have happened and we sincerely apologize."

But if they aren't checking that list, to see who actually was killed by the police, or who was killed in the act of committing a felony, or killed in righteous self-defense shootings, then why should we believe them?

I mean, seriously, the reader didn't catch that before saying it?


For all I know, "Tamerlan Tsarnaev" is as common as "John Smith."

Here's a list you'll like better.
It's a little out of date, though.
 
2013-06-19 03:21:03 PM  
I say we ban all political bus tours. You want to have a rally, attract a local crowd instead of bussing them in. This is what sets people off.

Also, in all fairness, police did come up and confront him after he was walking away. Two questions and they should let him go, not surrounding him preventing him to leave. That also provokes people.

Fine police work there Lou.
 
2013-06-19 03:26:27 PM  

cwheelie: washington-babylon: dittybopper: cwheelie: And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.

What, you mean like Mayor Bloomberg's personal bodyguard?

Holy shiat. Why is this guy not in jail for felony possession of a firearm? Oh, that's right... He has a boss with a lot of pull to keep him out of prison. Silly me, thinking that we still have a viable legal system.

the rich have different rules.....


Hmmm... isn't that what led to a little incident called "The French Revolution" a few hundred years ago?
 
2013-06-19 03:47:26 PM  

Headso: snuff3r: Also, you touch a cop, you're getting arrested. You're a farking IDIOT if you don't know this.

You're a farking IDIOT if you accept this fact as reasonable though...


It's completely reasonable.  There are definitely cases in which the police way overreacted to unintentional or casual contact but he put his hands on an officer during a dispute.  With police you get arrested for that, with non-police you're probably going to get knocked out.

That said, if he was just heckling and the police were called and were trying to detain him simply for that they are in the wrong 100%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fNSeeIC4x1E #t =205s
 
2013-06-19 04:00:24 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: "Why are you shaking talking about this? You're not the truth!" Musso said.

What... What does that even mean.


Yeah, I came here to comment on that, as well... WTF?

/"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!"
 
2013-06-19 04:20:07 PM  

liam76: They had  apermit for this rally, and he entered the rally and was going out of his way to disrupt the rally.  That is disturbing the peace.


Not any disturbing the peace ordinance I've ever enforced.  Nor one that you've managed to provide reference too.

liam76: You don't need the security to make it illegal to interfere with a permitted event.


No, you need a law.  And one hasn't been forthcoming from you yet.

liam76: If they have reserved the area for the speech and you disrupt it that is the textbook defintion of disturbing the peace.


Thankfully, textbooks and wikipedia are not used in court.  Law books are.  And I have yet to see a single law book that says it's illegal to speak in any manner in a location that another person has a permit for..  But just to make the point more clear, let's examine what Wikipedia includes:

"This can include creating loud noise by fighting or challenging to fight, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise (including loud music), or using offensive words."

Let's break it down:
1) Creating loud noise:  Nope.  No louder than was already being created, and in the middle of the day, which most noise ordinances don't cover
2) Fighting: Nope
3) Challenging to fight: Nope
4) Disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise: Nope.  He didn't create any noise other than was already being created so no one was disturbed by the noise
5) Offensive language: Nope

So, no.  He didn't meet the standards that even Wiki has for Disturbing the Peace.

liam76: The police could justify it becasue they saw him disturbing the peace.


Again, which of the above conditions did his actions meet?  None of them?  Oh, well never mind then.

liam76: Nope. It is a stage, about a foot off the ground I can walk on to. No security. I have seen people arrested for dancing and yelling in front of it (during a classical music show). No ropes were crossed, no security shouldered.


How is it that you happen to know what they were charged with or are you just ASS U Ming the charge?  Because I suspect it was for public intox.  Which happens to actually be an arrestable offense in many locations and often is accompanied by public dancing and singing.  It's not the dancing and singing they are being arrested for though.

And seriously, what kind of Nazi town do you live in where people get arrested for dancing in public?

liam76: Lets pretend you are right and I could only be arrested in a case like this for bumping into guards. What would your security company do if I was in an event and whipped out a bullhorn, or just started shouting over the main attraction?


Not a damn thing.
 
2013-06-19 04:22:36 PM  

RobSeace: Satanic_Hamster: "Why are you shaking talking about this? You're not the truth!" Musso said.

What... What does that even mean.

Yeah, I came here to comment on that, as well... WTF?


He didn't think anyone could look that good.
 
2013-06-19 04:27:08 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: dittybopper: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: dittybopper: Maybe the guy was just pissed because Mayor Bloomberg's organization thinks Tamerlan Tsarnaev is a victim of gun violence:

No, he wanted to know what gun the speaker's daughter was shot with.

/was tamerlan mentioned as a victim or perpetrator?

Ah.

Alex Katz, the deputy communications director for Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Bloomberg's office, apologized for the inclusion.

"Mayors Against Illegal Guns relied on the public list compiled by Slate.com entitled 'How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?', and his name was on the list," Katz said in an email. "He was absolutely not a victim, his name should have been deleted before the list was provided to a family member for reading and his name should never have been read. It was a mistake, it should not have happened and we sincerely apologize."

But if they aren't checking that list, to see who actually was killed by the police, or who was killed in the act of committing a felony, or killed in righteous self-defense shootings, then why should we believe them?

I mean, seriously, the reader didn't catch that before saying it?

For all I know, "Tamerlan Tsarnaev" is as common as "John Smith."

Here's a list you'll like better.
It's a little out of date, though.


There are some issues with that list.  At least one of the "accidental shootings" involves a pellet gun, not a real firearm.

Also, a quick thumbnail check of the very young accidental fatalities finds them at least 50% than what CDC rates from the past suggest they should be.  I don't have time right now to check every single one, but I think there might be some double-counting going on,
 
2013-06-19 04:39:28 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 05:04:18 PM  

Click Click D'oh: Not any disturbing the peace ordinance I've ever enforced. Nor one that you've managed to provide reference too.


The wiki one did, but you didn't acknowledge that part.

How does this work?

http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-10/subt it le-2/10-201

(2) A person may not willfully act in a disorderly manner that disturbs the public peace.

It isn't a complicated concept.

Click Click D'oh: So, no. He didn't meet the standards that even Wiki has for Disturbing the Peace.


As long as you ignore part that I directly quoted.

Click Click D'oh: Again, which of the above conditions did his actions meet? None of them? Oh, well never mind then.


The part I directly quoted in my previous reply, and the part I quoted above.

Click Click D'oh: How is it that you happen to know what they were charged with or are you just ASS U Ming the charge? Because I suspect it was for public intox. Which happens to actually be an arrestable offense in many locations and often is accompanied by public dancing and singing. It's not the dancing and singing they are being arrested for though.


I know because I watched.  It is very rare at that type of event, and funny for me.

Click Click D'oh: And seriously, what kind of Nazi town do you live in where people get arrested for dancing in public?


So a group has reserved a park to play classical music and guys start singing over them and arresting them for it is a "Nazi" town?

Grow up.

Adults recognize that just because something is "public space" doesn't mean you can ruin the ability of people to enjoy it for something they have reserved it for.

Click Click D'oh: Not a damn thing


If you guys are there just to get bumped so you can complain about assault, you are pretty worthless.
 
2013-06-19 05:34:48 PM  
Let's see... A big, inarticulate clod touches a police officer after they told him not to?

They shoulda hooked that taser up to a car battery and let it run for a while. I don't care if you're lefty or righty, don't BS with the cops when they start surrounding you like that. All it takes is one of them to think the situation is out of hand and the others will follow in.

He's lucky there was no stick time involved.
 
2013-06-19 06:28:52 PM  

washington-babylon: cwheelie: washington-babylon: dittybopper: cwheelie: And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.

What, you mean like Mayor Bloomberg's personal bodyguard?

Holy shiat. Why is this guy not in jail for felony possession of a firearm? Oh, that's right... He has a boss with a lot of pull to keep him out of prison. Silly me, thinking that we still have a viable legal system.

the rich have different rules.....

Hmmm... isn't that what led to a little incident called "The French Revolution" a few hundred years ago?


no, that was over cake being better than pie.
/famineabuse of power
 
2013-06-19 06:50:36 PM  

liam76: How does this work?

http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-law/title-10/subt it le-2/10-201

(2) A person may not willfully act in a disorderly manner that disturbs the public peace.

It isn't a complicated concept.


You really don't get this whole law thing do you?  1) What actions of his were disorderly?  Is walking on stage disorderly?  How so, didn't everyone else walk on stage?  Is asking the man questions disorderly?  Wouldn't the press corps be outlawed then?  2) What actions did he take that disturbed the peace?   Was he throwing punches at people?  Was he threatening people?  Was he saying things that were likely to cause an immediate breach of the peach by their mere utterance?  Well hell, none of what he was doing fits in with what you accused him of.  In practice, you will find that Maryland courts have a very narrow and strict view of what meets the two qualifications I highlighted.  In essence, in order to disturb the peace you have to violate the Fighting Words doctrine or actually engage in assaultive actions, which clearly didn't happen here, and although his actions were disruptive, they weren't disorderly.

Yet another case of someone reading the law versus someone that knows the law.

Nice try, epic fail though.

liam76: As long as you ignore part that I directly quoted.


The part you quoted from Wikipedia can be ignored at will since it's not law.  It's a vague summary open for misinterpretation by people that think they know what they are talking about but clearly don't.

 

liam76: I know because I watched.


Ergo, you clearly know what they were charged with and clearly couldn't be mistaken?  I forgot that a persons mere presence alone gives them an absolute grasp on all the facts at hand.

liam76: So a group has reserved a park to play classical music and guys start singing over them and arresting them for it is a "Nazi" town?


Anytime someone is arrested for committing a crime that doesn't exist, yeah, that pretty much is what it is.  Funny though that you are advocating arresting people for dancing in public.

I've got some movies for you to watch, if you are allowed to watch movies:  Footloose and Dirty Dancing.  Warning:  Contains Dancing.

liam76: Adults recognize that just because something is "public space" doesn't mean you can ruin the ability of people to enjoy it for something they have reserved it for.


No, adults recognize that you can do exactly that, but you generally shouldn't because it's a dickish thing to do.  There's a difference between "can" and "should".  There's also no laws against being a dick.

liam76: If you guys are there just to get bumped so you can complain about assault, you are pretty worthless.


I'll stick with the opinion of my clients instead of random Fark Jr. Legal Eagles who think that a Wikipedia summation of a law is an actual legal basis for anything.
 
2013-06-19 07:03:47 PM  

2farknfunny: washington-babylon: cwheelie: washington-babylon: dittybopper: cwheelie: And now, if convicted of a felony, he won't be able to legally own a gun!
You cunning plan, sir, was not thought through.

What, you mean like Mayor Bloomberg's personal bodyguard?

Holy shiat. Why is this guy not in jail for felony possession of a firearm? Oh, that's right... He has a boss with a lot of pull to keep him out of prison. Silly me, thinking that we still have a viable legal system.

the rich have different rules.....

Hmmm... isn't that what led to a little incident called "The French Revolution" a few hundred years ago?

no, that was over cake being better than pie.
/famineabuse of power


Wait... you mean "The Scarlet Pimpernel" LIED to me?
 
2013-06-19 07:09:17 PM  

gfid: willfullyobscure: Free Stater. I'd buy those cops a beer if I could.

being an asshole should have consequences.

-1 / 10.  I'm the only person stupid enough to respond.  Being an asshole isn't illegal.


he was an insufferable douchebag to a man who was brave enough to stand up in a public forum and talk about the pain of losing a child to violence. Behaving in such a manner certainly used to be grounds for an asskicking in this country and I'm not a bit sorry he got one.

Frankly, behavior like this from "rusponsbul gern erhners" is EXACTLY why you people are losing this conversation. Enjoy your constitutional rights? Fine. Think exercising them gives you a right to be so monstrously, sickeningly, uncivil and offensive? I'm not sorry for any amount of reprisal you suffer in return.

 He doesn't like what's being said, he can get his own soapbox next door, climb on up and biatch about the cowardly antics of men whose daughters' had the indecency to get shot.   fark him in the ear.
 
2013-06-19 09:02:18 PM  
act like a hippie, get treated like a hippie.
 
2013-06-19 09:51:54 PM  

Click Click D'oh: 1) What actions of his were disorderly? Is walking on stage disorderly? How so, didn't everyone else walk on stage? Is asking the man questions disorderly? Wouldn't the press corps be outlawed then?


Walking up to a guy giving a speech, interrupting him so everybody there for the speech is deprived of hearing it, waving his hands between the guys face and his speech, etc are all disorderly when they have a permit to give the speech there.

You really don't get this whole law thing do you?

Click Click D'oh: The part you quoted from Wikipedia can be ignored at will since it's not law.



You cherry picked info from wiki you liked, so don't pretend it is no good, especially when it is almost exactly what the law I quoted said.


Click Click D'oh: Ergo, you clearly know what they were charged with and clearly couldn't be mistaken? I forgot that a persons mere presence alone gives them an absolute grasp on all the facts at hand.


If I am watching them and hear what they say they are charged with that isn't "an absolute grasp of all facts" but keep playing dumb.


Click Click D'oh: Anytime someone is arrested for committing a crime that doesn't exist, yeah, that pretty much is what it is. Funny though that you are advocating arresting people for dancing in public.


Dishonest or stupid? Or is there some other reason you ignore the singing over the music people were there to see part?

Click Click D'oh: I'll stick with the opinion of my clients instead of random Fark Jr. Legal Eagles who think that a Wikipedia summation of a law is an actual legal basis for anything



If your clients are paying you for nothing more than standing around and crying he touched me when someone trys to bump past them, as you have made it out so far, they are idiots.

If you think there is enough difference between these two that one is worthless, so are you.
Actual law-(2) A person may not willfully act in a disorderly manner that disturbs the public peace.
Wiki summation-Disturbing the peace is a crime generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.

Click Click D'oh: No, adults recognize that you can do exactly that, but you generally shouldn't because it's a dickish thing to do. There's a difference between "can" and "should". There's also no laws against being a dick.


I am glad for moral and legal reason we don't live in your fantasy land.

It would suck on both counts if you rented out a pavilion for your kids T-ball party and when you tried to give awards some douche got in the face of the announcer and started talking over them and the only recourse was to play "he touched me first" and then call the cops if he touched you. Or if you rented a public park for your company and when giving out awards an ex-employee came to shout accusation in the face of the guy giving awards and you had to, once again, play he touched me first and call the cops to enjoy something you had reserved or paid for. Luckily we live int he real world where you can't legally do that, and we don't have to hire people like you to stand around and get bumped so the police can be called.
 
2013-06-20 06:24:33 AM  

willfullyobscure: Enjoy your constitutional rights?


You don't have a constitutional right to do what he did.

Just because soemthing happens in public doesn't give you free reign to disrupt it.

If the guy giving the speech was doing so in an impropmtu manner, you would be right, however as it was a planned event with permits to be there the clown disrupting it was no different than getting on (or in front of) stage at a Shakspear in the park show and talking over the actors.  You can and should be arrested for that for moral and legal reasons.
 
2013-06-20 12:57:42 PM  
titty kaka?
 
2013-06-20 02:55:45 PM  

willfullyobscure: Frankly, behavior like this from "rusponsbul gern erhners" is EXACTLY why you people are losing this conversation.


That's news to me, considering that new gun ownership is skyrocketing.   Nearly 26% of the sales of guns last year were to new gun owners.

As for losing the conversation, this is a protest against the NY SAFE Act:

img.fark.net

That was the second one held in the last few months.  Here was the first one:

img.fark.net

That one was on a cold and rainy Thursday back in February, during normal working hours (as was the first image, except in June).

This is the sort of thing the other side has in New York State:

img.fark.net

img.fark.net

And it's not just NYS either.  This is a comparison shot of two rallies in Illinois:

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-20 04:13:14 PM  

dittybopper: willfullyobscure: Frankly, behavior like this from "rusponsbul gern erhners" is EXACTLY why you people are losing this conversation.

That's news to me, considering that new gun ownership is skyrocketing.   Nearly 26% of the sales of guns last year were to new gun owners.

As for losing the conversation, this is a protest against the NY SAFE Act:

[img.fark.net image 550x415]

That was the second one held in the last few months.  Here was the first one:

[img.fark.net image 539x360]

That one was on a cold and rainy Thursday back in February, during normal working hours (as was the first image, except in June).

This is the sort of thing the other side has in New York State:

[img.fark.net image 320x240]

[img.fark.net image 360x200]

And it's not just NYS either.  This is a comparison shot of two rallies in Illinois:

[img.fark.net image 850x705]


one loud angry insufferable douchebag cancels out a hell out of good intentions from folk trying to do it the right way. Like it or not, the public face of gun ownership is this guy: out of control, paranoid and seditious with a healthy dose of "watch out for the browns" right now.

You need to be doing more to police your own community and step on the freaks, our it will cost you dearly. I should really say "we" since I own firearms and enjoy shooting, but I want no part of what goes along with being a gun owner today. Its shameful.
 
2013-06-20 08:44:11 PM  

SuburbanCowboy: The guy was being a total dick to someone who had lost a child, but the cops shouldn't have tased him. If you can't take down a guy slightly larger than you all  by yourself, without using a potentially deadly weapon (and tasers do kill people) you shouldn't be allowed to be a cop.

That said, I wish these people who are so adamant about gun rights would apply that passion equally to other important social issues.


They would, if those important social issues caused them to be afraid. Most of their fixation with guns is from fear, especially fear of "the other". That is why when you hear one asked bout gun rights and ownership they can't go more than one paragraph without using the phrase "self protection".
Fear is the motivation. Fear is the reason. Fear is the answer.
 
Displayed 199 of 199 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report