I have to post this in here.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by TheSunAlsoRises

dammit xian, i was reading that.

and I was fixing it

Originally Posted by Johnny Funk

For being assaulted AFTER they are restrained?

In general terms being cuffed/restrained isn't necessarily subdued. So yes, an officer may continue to use force after a person has been cuffed.

[The Nudist Buddhist]

If you weren't right all the time I'd have a much easier time arguing with you, asshole. I was all charged up and ready to unleash the textageddon on this thread, and like clockwork in comes Xian with his...his...correctness.

[PETA]

lol

ftr - I wasn't saying the cops were in the right. I was saying we need more to be able to say they were in the wrong. Well, that and correcting some misunderstandings about what the rights of speech and assembly are.

[djdfw]

[transplant]

Pretty much what Xian said. I didn't watch the video, but it sounds like just a montage of cops beating peeps down and yes there can be a context behind those scenes. We do have certain rights, however, within certain perameters. Like it or not, but it is the truth.

[TheSunAlsoRises]

Originally Posted by PETA

Speech and assembly may be legally regulated as to time place and manner. For example, parades usually require permits. One cannot hold a rally in a public park after it has been closed. One may be prohibitted from using obscene speech even if the time and place are legit. etc etc etc

Ok, so before we start a march, a congregation of people then we'll need to get a permit first? Who would be in a public park after it's closed, it's closed & that's called trespassing is it not? Obscene speech is one thing, you can get ticketed for such an offense iirc.

You do not have the right to say whatever you please, whenever you please or whatever you please. There are limits. Did these people cross them - that's the necessary context that is missing.

I guess these limits are what I'm referring to. If nothing is verbally offensive [ierofanities] other than an opposing view, why is it unacceptable?


Sure they can and if they refuse they could be arrested.

Refusing to leave public property just doesn't seem right to me? This leads me to believe that someone higher up is trying to keep certain bit of info out of the public eyes/ears. [speculating]

Bullshit. Would you rather an officer intimidated you and got you to walk away or would you prefer to be cuffed, stuffed, printed and processed and sitting in a cell awaiting a bail hearing?

No I'd much rather them push me into traffic & onto city property then back onto public property. Also, if I had some reasonably legitimate concern with whatever was transpiring then, yes, I probably would let them take me to jail [that is if I truly & wholly felt the cause]

You're laboring under a misconception of what the rights of assembly and speech are protected

I must check out what FREEDOM OF SPEECH/ASSEMBLY/PRESS really entails. I guess the fundamental aspect of these rights have been loosely interpreted therefore boundaries & parameters have been set up for each.

Bullshit. You have no right to say what you want, where and whenever you want. Try yelling "fire" in a crowded public space. Try shouting obsceneties in a public space. Try going into a park after closing to have a rally. You could be arrested for any of those exercises of "free speech."

I understand your point regarding FIRE & OBSCENE language but, you clearly just can't limit people & what they say completely. I mean, "someone from the secret service told me that you need to trash the sign or leave the property." The secret service?

I found this picture & it's just hilarious... "First Amendment Zone" lofl.

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by TheSunAlsoRises

Ok, so before we start a march, a congregation of people then we'll need to get a permit first?

Let's role play that one for a moment:

What if one day, unannounced, I roll up with 10,000 people and have a march, because hotdog buns should be bigger to hold all the extra good stuff without falling apart.

The city was unaware of it, so absolutely no logistics planning took place.
My march is causing traffic delays, because the city was not able to re-route traffic from the march route... so you are stuck in traffic, with no idea a hotdog march was going on, making you late for work and your boss pissed off, because he was expecting you on a 9am call with an important potential client.

Then about 200 protestors saw a dude buy a hotdog from a vendor on the street and the vendor is using a shitty stale bun. A small riot breaks out.

There are no cops immediately on the scene to contain the riot and before long, it spreads to 1,000. The cops that arrived at the scene are in no capacity to quell the rioters. They call for swat team units to be dispatched.

In the meantime, the hotdoggers have smashed your windshield and toppled over your car. You're pissed off and may never eat a hotdog again, which ultimately does little to help further my cause.


Now, this is an extreme scenario, but no matter the scale of a protest, march, what have you, there's a reason cities have ordinances and permits for these events.

[Hey Bubu]

Originally Posted by johnny861

let's role play that one for a moment:

What if one day, unannounced, i roll up with 10,000 people and have a march, because hotdog buns should be bigger to hold all the extra good stuff without falling apart.

The city was unaware of it, so absolutely no logistics planning took place.
My march is causing traffic delays, because the city was not able to re-route traffic from the march route... So you are stuck in traffic, with no idea a hotdog march was going on, making you late for work and your boss pissed off, because he was expecting you on a 9am call with an important potential client.

Then about 200 protestors saw a dude buy a hotdog from a vendor on the street and the vendor is using a shitty stale bun. A small riot breaks out.

There are no cops immediately on the scene to contain the riot and before long, it spreads to 1,000. The cops that arrived at the scene are in no capacity to quell the rioters. They call for swat team units to be dispatched.

In the meantime, the hotdoggers have smashed your windshield and toppled over your car. You're pissed off and may never eat a hotdog again, which ultimately does little to help further my cause.


Now, this is an extreme scenario, but no matter the scale of a protest, march, what have you, there's a reason cities have ordinances and permits for these events.

fucking hotdoggers hippies!!!

[TheSunAlsoRises]

Thank you Johnny for laying that out for me. In terms of the disruption of people's daily lives, I can understand that. It makes perfect sense to require permits. The city is made aware of the protest thus activating the police to protect the interest of the group & those surrounding [ie: keeping the peace].

[flor de vida]

Ok Mr PETA, I think Dawn layed out my questions to what you stated quite articulately, so I won't repeat them.

BUT, I am finding hard to swallow that you are stating that if I choose to go to a public park, and sit with a sign protesting something or other, I could be lawfully asked to leave and/or arrested? 'splain please.

I get the whole permit for a mass protest, absolutely.

Also, please 'splain the legality of officers assaulting restrained suspects- or referring specifically to the video, suspects who were restrained AND subdued? Because none of the footage on it showed anyone violently resisting arrest.

[SeedfulMusic]

You know my thoughts. Im totally againest Capitalism, Moneterism, and our established Government. But this guy is no better than the people hes pointing a finger at. Between all the name calling, and hate-speak he dished out, he doesnt help the cause of moving things "forward" out of the current state. Hes as bad if not worse simply b/c he is unable to see his own hypocrisy.

[The Nudist Buddhist]

You're totally against our established government? How does that move things forward?

[PETA]

Speech and assembly may be legally regulated as to time place and manner. For example, parades usually require permits. One cannot hold a rally in a public park after it has been closed. One may be prohibitted from using obscene speech even if the time and place are legit. etc etc etc

Ok, so before we start a march, a congregation of people then we'll need to get a permit first? Who would be in a public park after it's closed, it's closed & that's called trespassing is it not? Obscene speech is one thing, you can get ticketed for such an offense iirc.

Profanity is not synonymous w/obscene

You do not have the right to say whatever you please, whenever you please or whatever you please. There are limits. Did these people cross them - that's the necessary context that is missing.

I guess these limits are what I'm referring to. If nothing is verbally offensive [ierofanities] other than an opposing view, why is it unacceptable?

That's the further context needed in order to evaluate the video better. If the speech was not obscene then the issues of time and place would need to be investigated.

Sure they can and if they refuse they could be arrested.

Refusing to leave public property just doesn't seem right to me? This leads me to believe that someone higher up is trying to keep certain bit of info out of the public eyes/ears. [speculating]

We've covered the refusiong to leave public property bit... the closed park. There are analogous situations.

You are speculating as to motive with little evidence to support your notion.

Bullshit. Would you rather an officer intimidated you and got you to walk away or would you prefer to be cuffed, stuffed, printed and processed and sitting in a cell awaiting a bail hearing?

No I'd much rather them push me into traffic & onto city property then back onto public property. Also, if I had some reasonably legitimate concern with whatever was transpiring then, yes, I probably would let them take me to jail [that is if I truly & wholly felt the cause]

ok.

You're laboring under a misconception of what the rights of assembly and speech are protected

I must check out what FREEDOM OF SPEECH/ASSEMBLY/PRESS really entails. I guess the fundamental aspect of these rights have been loosely interpreted therefore boundaries & parameters have been set up for each.

There's a large body of case law on these issues. Feel free to research to your heart's content. The easiest rule to remember with the regulation of speech is that it can be regulated as to time/place/manner and must be content neutral. Its obviously more complicated than that but that's a good rule of thumb.

Bullshit.You have no right to say what you want, where and whenever you want. Try yelling "fire" in a crowded public space. Try shouting obsceneties in a public space. Try going into a park after closing to have a rally. You could be arrested for any of those exercises of "free speech."

I understand your point regarding FIRE & OBSCENE language but, you clearly just can't limit people & what they say completely. I mean, "someone from the secret service told me that you need to trash the sign or leave the property." The secret service?

You are right. We cannot completely regulate speech. As for the event on the video. Again, context necessary for a decent conclusion to be drawn. You could well be right that the police/etc acted outside the scope of their authority. Then again, maybe not.

Originally Posted by flor de vida

Ok Mr PETA, I think Dawn layed out my questions to what you stated quite articulately, so I won't repeat them.

BUT, I am finding hard to swallow that you are stating that if I choose to go to a public park, and sit with a sign protesting something or other, I could be lawfully asked to leave and/or arrested? 'splain please.

Sure. You misunderstood what I said. Time place manner. If you did so after the park closed you could be arrested. If you did so with an obscene sign you could be arrested.

Originally Posted by flor de vida

Also, please 'splain the legality of officers assaulting restrained suspects- or referring specifically to the video, suspects who were restrained AND subdued? Because none of the footage on it showed anyone violently resisting arrest.

I already pointed out that the video lacks context, that officers may use force to subdue a suspect even if handcuffed. I'm not speculating on the video because we don't have enough info. As I said above, I'm in no way saying they acted according to hoyle. I said we don't have enough to determine that they clearly violated the rights of the people who were cuffed.

Originally Posted by SeedfulMusic

You know my thoughts. Im totally againest Capitalism, Moneterism, and our established Government. But this guy is no better than the people hes pointing a finger at. Between all the name calling, and hate-speak he dished out, he doesnt help the cause of moving things "forward" out of the current state. Hes as bad if not worse simply b/c he is unable to see his own hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by The Nudist Buddhist

You're totally against our established government? How does that move things forward?

And what is the alternative that would be better than what we have?

[-m-]

First off, I think that insulting all law enforcement in the way they did was pretty classless. While I think justice system has become industrialized in the States I also see the need for cops on the streets. The footage for the arrests made during protesting for trespassing deserves context, but there is no excuse for beating someone after they're in cuffs. I recall some of those incidents in the news, and to my recollection most of those ended in the officers being fired.

It's funny living in a place like Greece. Here the police are all employees of the State and there's an enormous sense of arrogance from the people towards them. They seem to know their place here.

[vinnie97]

Originally Posted by SeedfulMusic

You know my thoughts. Im totally againest Capitalism, Moneterism, and our established Government. But this guy is no better than the people hes pointing a finger at. Between all the name calling, and hate-speak he dished out, he doesnt help the cause of moving things "forward" out of the current state. Hes as bad if not worse simply b/c he is unable to see his own hypocrisy.

I hate to say you've totally lost it, SM, because you are a talented guy but, but...there is no better form of government/economy than our own (unless you think there is someone enlightened enough to create a new form that will significantly improve our own). Either you reward hard work and thus you benefit from the fruits of that labor or you redistribute the day's earnings so that nobody's feelings are hurt for being left out/slighted. Such utopias only exist in your mind, or quickly devolve into places where you wouldn't think twice about living.