• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mayhem in SLC...

Moot

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,549
Reaction score
15,452
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
First Amendment guarantees their right to peaceful assembly.

Once they get violent, though, they lose First Amendment protection.
 
More disgusting police thuggery.



One officer in the video is visible as he lifts a young woman into the air and slams her onto the lawn in front of a home. The woman says, “I can’t see,” three times as officers are detaining her.


Beating down a woman. DP's you-know-whos will love that. I mean, it's not happening to them or their own. It's happening to their political enemies.
 
We should report all crime this way.

"Man arrested after peaceful bank transaction escalates into armed robbery."

"Peaceful drive along Main St. becomes deadly when man accelerates and plows into crowd."
 
First Amendment guarantees their right to peaceful assembly.

Once they get violent, though, they lose First Amendment protection.

The video in the article starts a little earlier. The cop you see tackling the guy above actually ran over to the guy first. Given all the disgusting police behavior I've seen in these protests and in the time since phones with video capability became ubiquitous, I'm not going to take their word that they were attacked first.






PS: and even if things went the way you seem to have assumed they went, no, being violent does not mean you lose your First Amendment protection. It means you're likely committing one or more crimes, but it doesn't mean you can then be punished for speech.
 
Fry 'em like bacon.
 
The video in the article starts a little earlier. The cop you see tackling the guy above actually ran over to the guy first. Given all the disgusting police behavior I've seen in these protests and in the time since phones with video capability became ubiquitous, I'm not going to take their word that they were attacked first.






PS: and even if things went the way you seem to have assumed they went, no, being violent does not mean you lose your First Amendment protection. It means you're likely committing one or more crimes, but it doesn't mean you can then be punished for speech.

It looks to me like the cops were in the process of clearing the street and the guy that got tackled was making it a point to NOT clear the street until the cop approached him.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
This is nuts...they're protesting in a residential neighborhood over the death of a kid that was killed two years ago by police after he robbed two banks with airsoft rifle.


Police and protesters clash in Cottonwood Heights; officers detain several demonstrators - The Salt Lake Tribune



It's one thing for the police to kill someone without cause....but it's a whole different ballgame when someone is killed while committing a crime. I have no sympathy for these protesters.


Mormons feeling left out I guess :shrug:
 
More disgusting police thuggery.



One officer in the video is visible as he lifts a young woman into the air and slams her onto the lawn in front of a home. The woman says, “I can’t see,” three times as officers are detaining her.


Beating down a woman. DP's you-know-whos will love that. I mean, it's not happening to them or their own. It's happening to their political enemies.
If you initiate violence against a trained LEO, you get what you get.
 
It didn't have anything to do with Mormons.

If you want to quibble about details, their son also was not killed by police. Their son elected to stop being treated after he was paralyzed from the neck down.
 
If you want to quibble about details, their son also was not killed by police. Their son elected to stop being treated after he was paralyzed from the neck down.

How did he get paralyzed...and be sure not to quibble.
 
How did he get paralyzed...and be sure not to quibble.

Actually they are not certain according to the lawsuit the family filed, but since you were there, let us know....
 
Actually they are not certain according to the lawsuit the family filed, but since you were there, let us know....

You're quibbling...he was shot in the back while trying to flee.

Over the years, there's been a lot of complaints about the heavy handedness of the Cottonwood Heights police even though there's not a lot of crime in that area...so maybe they should be defunded...the extra money can go to treating drug addiction and the mentally ill of which there is plenty of.
 
You're quibbling...he was shot in the back while trying to flee.

Over the years, there's been a lot of complaints about the heavy handedness of the Cottonwood Heights police even though there's not a lot of crime in that area...so maybe they should be defunded...the extra money can go to treating drug addiction and the mentally ill of which there is plenty of.

They are not certain if his paralysis is related to the police encounter or his neck not being immobilized. Your plan sounds awesome for everybody except the store employees who have a gun shoved in their face by drug addicts like this one.
 
Back
Top Bottom