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 199
    More: Asinine, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, counters, rally  
•       •       •

13062 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jun 2013 at 9:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

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