I was thinking the same thing about the LEO that busted him. He was almost provoking a response justifying his arrest. I would say that he is a douchebag... :)
Printable View
I was thinking the same thing about the LEO that busted him. He was almost provoking a response justifying his arrest. I would say that he is a douchebag... :)
Agreed, the lone protester was no worse than the other protesters. The issue is: Do the police have the right to move protesters to more acceptable areas to conduct their right to protest in a peaceful manner? The answer in most jurisdictions is "Yes." The cop told the guy to move over there. For the obvious practical reason, it is easier to move one protester than it is to move a large group of protesters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
When the one protester refused, the cop moved him. He resisted when he moved back to the area he was told to move away from, and at that point, the officer is justified in moving him into the back of a car.
My guess is the case was not papered or he was never even booked. Every jurisdiction handles these types of issues differently. Either way, I would guess that there will be no law suit filed by the lone protester, and there will be no settlement against the city. If it did go to court, it would be thrown out because most courts recognize the need for officers to maintain control to avert the possibility of harm to either side.
Hypothetically, let's say the lone protester remains where he was. The police pull back and the large group surrounds the lone protester so that none of the news cameras or on-lookers can see him. When the group finally disperses five minutes later, the lone protester is laying on the ground, bloody, bruised, and with that sign pole lodged in one of his bodily orifices. In that situation, the lone protester would be quite within his rights to sue the city and the police department for not doing their duty to protect him. Worst of all, unless one of the large group flipped and identified who actually assaulted him, there would be almost no chance that anyone would ever be charged.
Protests are wonderful when everyone agrees with one another and there is no tension. That almost never happens. Regardless of how the police feel about whatever issue being protested, the police have an obligation and are sworn to protect the peace. Sometimes the police can be over zealous in enforcing the peace, but in the short clip I watched, the officer did what he thought necessary to accomplish that mission. Without seeing what happened before, or after, or knowing what the specific laws are governing that location for demonstrations, that is all I can say about this specific situation.
Be safe.
Careful guys, I've got a stack of these and I know how to use them..
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2495/...dc1e063957.jpg
Man, I am so pissed after watching that. It is crap like that that makes me pray to God for the zombie Apocalypse to come sooner.
Agree and disagree. The police have to protect the persons involved in that protest, but at no point did I ever feel that either side was in any sort of danger or that any physical violence could have broken out. If there were people threatening violence towards him, or as you described, encircling him with the possibility of escalating violence then I would completely agree with your assessment of the situation. Looking at the video I would say the the arresting officer had a dog in this fight and was not acting in a manner to protect him. He was pushing him out to the side to either shut him up, or create a situation where he could arrest him to get him out of the picture. I doubt any of those dumb old indoctrinated sheeple would have ever started violence and the marine was doing a good job of voicing his intent, and his ideology and that was in no way threatening or what I would consider antagonizing to the point of inciting violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
Should he have fought back against the officer after he was relocated? No, that was dumb even if he was right. But I do not see any reason in any of the film displayed that would justify relocating him in the first place.
If you can consider what he was doing as creating civil unrest and justify arresting him then we are sunk as a nation. If police have the ability to detain someone because they were making someone else unhappy in a public forum, regardless of any criminal charges filed, there is no hope for our country. Any single person should be able to stand up and voice their opinions on anything they choose without fear of being physically detained for their beliefs as long as they do so in a civil manner, do not break standing laws and are not putting themselves or anyone else in danger. I think that this man was doing just that, and even if it makes the dumb mob upset that someone brought a mind capable of rational thought to their dumb fest, then so be it.
Well, I didn't see the guy resisting at all. I saw him waving his hand around and pointing at the officer. I also saw him, and what appeared to instigate the cuffing, wave his hand rather quickly in front of the officer's face but he appeared to be trying to point to something.
I also didn't see anything that would lead me to believe that anyone was in danger.
Of course, this all still is subject to the caveat of WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE VIDEO.
fuck liberals.
that is all[Tooth]
This is the reason why I don't feel qualified to pass judgment on anyone in the video. I wasn't there. I can't see what happened before, after, or not shown during the video.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I have worked at a number of demonstrations. I would try to do everything I could, within reason, to provide a peaceful opportunity for everyone to protest and speak their mind. It was often obvious that not everyone was interested in peaceful demonstration. Many people were there solely for publicity. Some people were there to bring about a conflict either with counter demonstrators or the police. Often the permit issued for demonstrations in public spaces are very specific on what is allowed and where it is allowed. There are many things that go into these types of permit issuance negotiations. Sometimes people show up to demonstrations on either side who have no knowledge of or consideration for the lawful process to provide a free and peaceful protest area for as many people as possible.
Some people think that their individual rights out weigh the rights of everyone else in the entire country. IMO, those people are just plain wrong.
Be safe.
I found this story in the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepo...156496565.html
At the Clinton rally, a Walker supporter carrying a sign that said, "Support Scott Walker, Not Union Thugs," refused repeated police requests to back away from a rope line where Clinton was shaking hands and posing for pictures. The man was later taken away from the scene and arrested. He was issued a citation for disorderly conduct.
I can say that as a general rule, big wooden poles like the one the guy had his sign on are not allowed on a rope line when a former or current U.S. President is shaking hands. This would be true if it was Jimmy Carter, either George Bush, and Bill Clinton, who was apparently in the crowd the cops were trying to keep him away from.
I say all that on speculation, because it wasn't clear from the video and I have no way of confirming whether this jsonline story is reporting the arrest of the same guy in the video.
Is my post meant to change anyone's opinion? No. I just like to point out that there are always at least two sides to every issue and even first hand participants don't always agree on exactly what happened.
Be safe.
Ahhh, the sheeple. They're the same everywhere they are.
http://i1018.photobucket.com/albums/...difference.jpg