- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Non-peaceful protesters should be brought up on criminal charges, but peaceful protesters are exerting their first amendment rights exactly as the Constitution intended. For even considering making peaceful protesters pay for this, Carmen Trutanich has shown ignorance of the Constitution that should not be acceptable in someone working for an agency expected to uphold it.
Non-peaceful protesters should be brought up on criminal charges, but peaceful protesters are exerting their first amendment rights exactly as the Constitution intended. For even considering making peaceful protesters pay for this, Carmen Trutanich has shown ignorance of the Constitution that should not be acceptable in someone working for an agency expected to uphold it.
Non-peaceful protesters should be brought up on criminal charges, but peaceful protesters are exerting their first amendment rights exactly as the Constitution intended. For even considering making peaceful protesters pay for this, Carmen Trutanich has shown ignorance of the Constitution that should not be acceptable in someone working for an agency expected to uphold it.
Now you aren't even trying to do anything but make people angry and stroke your own ego by doing it. Real childish.
Not when the financial sector is getting away with wasting billions of dollars to clean up their mess.
Not true. Many jurisdictions require permits in order to have a group beyond a certain size assemble, as there are numerous safety codes that must be adhered to, and other considerations. In many cases insurance bonds are required as well. All Constitutional.
Get off your "holier than thou" high horse and get off my case.
This is an Internet forum (albeit one of the more civil ones), after all.
"Wiseone", perhaps you can get on topic, eh?
"Peaceful" does not make something legal.
I fully support anyone that wishes to ignore any permit system. If I'm leading the protest, I would stay out of the roads because of understanding a safe passage of emergency vehicles, but outside of that, no, I would not get a permit.
Nor does the dislike of one exercising their Constitutional rights.
I can see the delima here. However, in the end since this is the exerciese of a right; namely protest and assembly that we must accept this as a consequence of freedom. I fear too many people forget consequence.
How much does gun ownership cost us?
We have a lot of gun crime and a lot of legal, medical, and social dynamics which feed into it and cost us all money.
Certainly there would always be some amount of gun crime; but if we took very authoratative measures to remove guns physically we could decrease that number greatly.
Do we sue gun owners?
Do we sue gun companies?
No, crime and the other costs associated with gun ownership are a consequence of freedom. One which must be borne out if we are to maintain freedom.
Then you break the law, while claiming to support the law. In the end, you will be violating the Constitutional rights of others, because you claim to "have that right".
Do I need to explain all the laws that pertain to safety codes, right-of-way and traffic laws, sanitation, insurance bonds ..... etc ?
"I would stay out of the road" does not quite cover it" :roll:
My issue is that its impossible to determine who is going to be held responsible and for what amount of the clean up they are responsible for. Its impossible for a court to get everyone who was there, who knows exactly who was there as they came and left, and say "OK we'll divide the total number of people by the cost of damages, and call it a day." Thats not how law works, you have to be found individually guilty of a specific act which violated the law, as in "You through that specific cup on the ground, that is littering on public property" and through analysis by the court and clean up workers, they'll determine what portion of the total amount that specific person owes. If it sounds crazy for one person, imagine doing it for hundreds of them. If the government actually went ahead of this they would be wasting a large amount of money in court and lawyer fees, not to mention still having to pay for the cost of the clean up. After all the city isn't going to set the garbage sit there until the case works its way through court, they'll clean it up at their own cost and then seek damages.
I entirely agree that those who damage public property should be held accountable for it, but I disagree with the idea of punishing en-masse when a certain individuals actions cannot be proven nor can it be proven he was responsible for any damages. Individual accountability MUST be achieved before I'd support any fines being levied against protestors, it'll be a sad day in America when people can be found guilty by association.
I agree with you.
Well now that's that, this is why I'm so adamant about civility, I actually agree more with the conservatives individuals here but I find it difficult to associate myself with them because some of the language that they use. Now I know I'm just one guy on a lonely anonymous internet forum, but it does drive a wedge in between two otherwise agreeing people. And I think in both our opinions its more important to agree on the actual issue, then agree on how to refer to the protesters. That's why I prefer a term which doesn't insult anyone like "The Occupy Movement" as opposed to "Occutards" because using the first term doesn't create a new and unnecessary obstacle towards agreement, or at least mutual understanding of two different opinions.
Nobody is under any risk by protesting on the courthouse lawn.
My issue is that its impossible to determine who is going to be held responsible and for what amount of the clean up they are responsible for. Its impossible for a court to get everyone who was there, who knows exactly who was there as they came and left, and say "OK we'll divide the total number of people by the cost of damages, and call it a day." Thats not how law works, you have to be found individually guilty of a specific act which violated the law, as in "You through that specific cup on the ground, that is littering on public property" and through analysis by the court and clean up workers, they'll determine what portion of the total amount that specific person owes. If it sounds crazy for one person, imagine doing it for hundreds of them. If the government actually went ahead of this they would be wasting a large amount of money in court and lawyer fees, not to mention still having to pay for the cost of the clean up. After all the city isn't going to set the garbage sit there until the case works its way through court, they'll clean it up at their own cost and then seek damages.
I entirely agree that those who damage public property should be held accountable for it, but I disagree with the idea of punishing en-masse when a certain individuals actions cannot be proven nor can it be proven he was responsible for any damages. Individual accountability MUST be achieved before I'd support any fines being levied against protestors, it'll be a sad day in America when people can be found guilty by association.
Well done, but perhaps there is a solution.
When there is a mess at one of those OWS rallies perhaps the protesters can be warned that while their protests are Constitutional, making a mess over public and private property is not. Nor it not allowing people to go about their normal course of business a valid form of protest.
Recognizing this, the police could warn those in attendance that unless everything is kept to established levels of cleanliness, those protesters who refuse to clean up the area, or who refuse to disperse, will be charged with the city cleaning up behind them. This would appear as part of their police records until they paid their fines and for the mess they left behind.
You, by yourself, on the Courthouse lawn ..................... we agree, you likely are not much of a risk concern to yourself or others.
But that is not the situation we have with the Occutards. I believe that the Occutards camped in the park in NYC thought they were exercising their Constitutional rights. And in Oakland. Etc.
Point being, we have laws. Plenty of them, All designed such that you, the "protester", better understsand where the excercize of your Constitutional rights has boundaries, those boundaries always being the protection of the Constitutnional rights of others. Most deal with crowd size and control, safety and sanitation, hours allowed, and land usage. Permits are designed to make sure all are aware, and that potentially damaging incidents can be minimized.
Simplest example. You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and hide behind "Freedom of Speech".
Well now that's that, this is why I'm so adamant about civility, I actually agree more with the conservatives individuals here but I find it difficult to associate myself with them because some of the language that they use. Now I know I'm just one guy on a lonely anonymous internet forum, but it does drive a wedge in between two otherwise agreeing people. And I think in both our opinions its more important to agree on the actual issue, then agree on how to refer to the protesters. That's why I prefer a term which doesn't insult anyone like "The Occupy Movement" as opposed to "Occutards" because using the first term doesn't create a new and unnecessary obstacle towards agreement, or at least mutual understanding of two different opinions.
That is why we have permits. Sanitation requirements. Posting of insurance bonds. Etc. Many legitimate rallies, such as Tea Party events, were made to conform to all. Then we had Occutards who both ignored such, but almost all in towns with Democrat mayors and City Councils, who did not enforce their own statutes. Richmond is one example of the double standards.
Not only do I have a right to protest, I have a right to freely associate with like minded individuals.
But you can call the president a jerk which might make many uncomfortable. I noted that I understood not being able to block emergency vehicles which would be comperable to the "fire" example.
But you ignore all the other issues which I noted, and which were on display with the lawless Occutards in many major cities.
There are reasons permits are required. Do you still deny such ? It is the law in many places, btw. Passing Constitutional muster, btw.
Not only do I have a right to protest, I have a right to freely associate with like minded individuals.
But you can call the president a jerk which might make many uncomfortable. I noted that I understood not being able to block emergency vehicles which would be comperable to the "fire" example.
But, you don't have the right to trash out public property, creating a scenario where millions of tax payer dollars are wasted on the clean up. There is enough wasteful spending in the government as it is, without this kind of thing taking place.
The irony of the occutards, is that they scream for higher taxes, claiming that there isn't enough tax revenue for social services, but cause the wasteful spedning of a million+ dollars.
Not only do I have a right to protest, I have a right to freely associate with like minded individuals.
"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right of freedom of assembly. Under the common law and modern statutes, however, the meeting of three or more persons may constitute an unlawful assembly if the persons have an illegal purpose or if their meeting will breach the public peace of the community. If they actually execute their purpose, they have committed the criminal offense of riot."
Read more: Unlawful assembly: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?