It's ok to protest...

[tmleadr03]

as long as you protest for what THEY believe in.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...Rally#comments

[jackthewall81]

I hate liberals.

[zteknik]

Its for the good of the people

[Adawg38]

Freedom of speech, just watch what you say.

That's BS he totally did nothing wrong and all those dumb asses in the background should of been arrested, they sounded like they were creating Civil Unrest to me.

[Fentonite]

This is infuriating. Anybody know what happened with the charges?

[palepainter]

Un Fucking Real...... This country is so messed up. I can't wait for the day that liberals actually are pinned down by the same bullshit they breed.

[Ridge]

Un Fucking Real...... This country is so messed up. I can't wait for the day that liberals actually are pinned down by the same bullshit they breed.

But of course, that would never happen with their government...

[cstone]

Gasoline in storage is not a problem.

Fire contained is not a problem.

Leaving gasoline stored next to a fire is irresponsible.

Sometimes, for the sake of public safety, it is necessary to keep two opposing sides of protesters separated. As a uniformed police presence, when you have directed citizens to separate, because you are charged with maintaining order, and one or more citizens resist or refuse that direction, force may be used to carry out your charge of maintaining public order.

We can discuss this rationally and peacefully on this board. On the public square, during a heated demonstration, is not the time, or the place to go head to head with the police.

That is unless you want to be cuffed and placed in the back of a wagon.

Freedom is not anarchy. Free speech is not absolute freedom to speak anything, anywhere, at any time.

Be safe.

[Bailey Guns]

Gasoline in storage is not a problem.

Fire contained is not a problem.

Leaving gasoline stored next to a fire is irresponsible.

Sometimes, for the sake of public safety, it is necessary to keep two opposing sides of protesters separated. As a uniformed police presence, when you have directed citizens to separate, because you are charged with maintaining order, and one or more citizens resist or refuse that direction, force may be used to carry out your charge of maintaining public order.

We can discuss this rationally and peacefully on this board. On the public square, during a heated demonstration, is not the time, or the place to go head to head with the police.

That is unless you want to be cuffed and placed in the back of a wagon.

Freedom is not anarchy. Free speech is not absolute freedom to speak anything, anywhere, at any time.

Be safe.

While I understand what you're saying, cstone, about maintaining public order, the lone protester wasn't the problem.

FROM THE VIDEO ONLY I didn't see any probable cause for an arrest whatsoever. He wasn't doing anything differently than anyone else, with the exception he was speaking more rationally and was more peaceful - ie: he wasn't doing any name-calling to specific individuals. The closest he came was saying "union thugs", a generic term.

My guess is the Sgt who arrested him is part of the union - and, yes, I'd label him a union thug if so - and is sympathetic to the union cause and wanted the guy outta there. I'd also call him a disgrace to the profession for his behavior. I suspect if the guy wants to press it he'll have a good chance at a successful lawsuit against the arresting officer(s) and the city.

If you're a union member, you're part of the problem. I hope Walker wins and I sincerely hope for the dissolution of all unions. What a bunch of scumbags in that video.

[cstone]

While I understand what you're saying, cstone, about maintaining public order, the lone protester wasn't the problem.

FROM THE VIDEO ONLY I didn't see any probable cause for an arrest whatsoever. He wasn't doing anything differently than anyone else, with the exception he was speaking more rationally and was more peaceful - ie: he wasn't doing any name-calling to specific individuals. The closest he came was saying "union thugs", a generic term.

My guess is the Sgt who arrested him is part of the union - and, yes, I'd label him a union thug if so - and is sympathetic to the union cause and wanted the guy outta there. I'd also call him a disgrace to the profession for his behavior. I suspect if the guy wants to press it he'll have a good chance at a successful lawsuit against the arresting officer(s) and the city.

If you're a union member, you're part of the problem. I hope Walker wins and I sincerely hope for the dissolution of all unions. What a bunch of scumbags in that video.

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.

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.