[QUOTE=Lankist;17542546]So therefore because cops are inept we need to just disregard basic constitutional rights.
No.[/QUOTE]
No, we need to fucking do what would cause the best possible outcome with the least amount of damage. Or at least try to.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542546]So therefore because cops are inept we need to just disregard basic constitutional rights.
No.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I shouldn't have to repeat this. They're no Supermen. They had to make generalizations. While I agree that it wasn't the best tactic, it worked.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17542536]Might? What part of unruly crowds, property damage, inability to control and organize the crowds is a might in this? And like I said, I don't care if that's how the permit system works or that federal laws override local laws- no one gave these protesters the ability to ignore local laws, and they abandoned their right to peacefully protest when they began disturbing the peace, blocking streets, and then later assaulting officers and damaging property. Far as I see, the fact that they were not abiding by federal laws or local laws and being violent nulls any right to protest they had. But whatever, I'm through too.[/QUOTE]
You don't care how our system of government works when we're talking about how our system of government works.
Apologize to your superiors and then excuse yourself out of this thread, please.
[editline]08:57PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=DPennington;17542563]No, we need to fucking do what would cause the best possible outcome with the least amount of damage. Or at least try to.[/QUOTE]
That's fine.
So long as it doesn't violate constitutional rights.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;17542558]So now they were ALL unruly and did property damage?[/QUOTE]
Not all of them, but most of the crowds were unruly, unorganized, not under watch, able to freely roam until police came by and were disregarding local laws.
[QUOTE=Archy;17542575]Honestly, I shouldn't have to repeat this. They're no Supermen. They had to make generalizations. While I agree that it wasn't the best tactic, it worked.[/QUOTE]
Except how it violated constitutional rights.
[editline]08:57PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=DPennington;17542597]Not all of them, but most of the crowds were unruly, unorganized, not under watch, able to freely roam until police came by and were disregarding local laws.[/QUOTE]
Prove it.
[editline]08:57PM[/editline]
Or leave.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542599]Except how it violated constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]
Look, when the police were there, they sure as hell weren't being peaceful. They were blocking roads, disturbing the peace, etc, etc, etc. The police told them to move, and they refused. The cops asked again, and things turned violent. In the end, 40 people were arrested and the crowd had to be tear gassed. The police didn't violate any rights. They cut their losses.
[QUOTE=Archy;17542638]Look, when the police were there, they sure as hell weren't being peaceful. They were blocking roads, disturbing the peace, etc, etc, etc. The police told them to move, and they refused. They did it again, and things turned violent. In the end, 40 people were arrested and the crowd had to be tear gassed. They didn't violate any rights. They cut their losses.[/QUOTE]
Misdemeanors =/= unlawful assembly.
They DID violate rights. They dispersed a crowd that was for the most part peaceful and fully within their rights to hold a demonstration on an already closed, public road.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542581]You don't care how our system of government works when we're talking about how our system of government works.
Apologize to your superiors and then excuse yourself out of this thread, please.
[editline]08:57PM[/editline]
That's fine.
So long as it doesn't violate constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]
See? You go by the book, I'm going by what's practical. Even when it's more harmful and breaking other laws put in place to keep things running smoothly, it's okay, because it's in the constitution. I guess I lose, so I'm retreating into my hole now.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17542648]See? You go by the book, I'm going by what's practical. Even when it's more harmful and breaking other laws put in place to keep things running smoothly, it's okay, because it's in the constitution. I guess I lose, so I'm retreating into my hole now.[/QUOTE]
Police states are practical.
No.
[editline]09:01PM[/editline]
Police states see a lot more than this.
Tienanmen Square, for instance.
[editline]09:02PM[/editline]
Honestly you don't seem to understand how what you suggest only breeds more and more violent riots.
[QUOTE=DPennington;17542597]Not all of them, but most of the crowds were unruly, unorganized, not under watch, able to freely roam until police came by and were disregarding local laws.[/QUOTE]
They became agitated when they were pushed back by those cops tapping on their riot shields.
You are not making a point here.
[QUOTE=Archy;17542638]Look, when the police were there, they sure as hell weren't being peaceful. They were blocking roads, disturbing the peace, etc, etc, etc. The police told them to move, and they refused. The cops asked again, and things turned violent. In the end, 40 people were arrested and the crowd had to be tear gassed. [B]The police didn't violate any rights.[/B] They cut their losses.[/QUOTE]
The thing is: they did violate rights.
They forced 4460 peaceful protesters to stop protesting, although their right to a peaceful protest is protected under the first amendment.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542646]Misdemeanors =/= unlawful assembly.
They DID violate rights. They dispersed a crowd that was for the most part peaceful and fully within their rights to hold a demonstration on an already closed, public road.[/QUOTE]
It didn't start as unlawful assembly, I'll admit that. They were, however being a general annoyance to the public. When the police told them to stop acting like dicks, the some of the protesters turned around and got violent.
I personally believe this was caused by the presence of riot cops. It would've probably gone better with standard, municipal police.
Also, nobody seems to know what disruption of the peace really is.
[editline]09:04PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Archy;17542688]It didn't start as unlawful assembly, I'll admit that. They were, however being a general annoyance to the public. When the police told them to stop acting like dicks to the public, they turned around and started throwing stuff and breaking things.
I personally believe this was caused by the presence of riot cops. It would've probably gone better with standard, municipal police.[/QUOTE]
Uhh, being annoying is not illegal.
They were provoked by riot cops who took the offensive.
Any violence was honestly the police's fault. They started pushing people back, who by the by were protesting police states and fascism, and marched at them with riot cops.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542689]Also, nobody seems to know what disruption of the peace really is.
[editline]09:04PM[/editline]
Uhh, being annoying is not illegal.
They were provoked by riot cops who took the offensive.
Any violence was honestly the police's fault.[/QUOTE]
I dunno. This is kind of sad, we're arguing over the internet. Perhaps this should be discussed over PMs so we don't derail the thread.
[editline]09:06PM[/editline]
Also, I more or less meant disruptive when I said annoying. They [i]were[/i] being disruptive to the public. Things just escalated when police told them to stop.
I'm not arguing, I am educating.
I am an educator.
[editline]09:06PM[/editline]
Arguing implies the rest of you have a basis of knowledge.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542716]I'm not arguing, I am educating.
I am an educator.
[editline]09:06PM[/editline]
Arguing implies the rest of you have a basis of knowledge.[/QUOTE]
Egomaniac, much?
[QUOTE=Lankist;17542716]I'm not arguing, I am educating.
I am an educator.
[editline]09:06PM[/editline]
Arguing implies the rest of you have a basis of knowledge.[/QUOTE]
Could you explain me what is "disruption of peace" and if it's the same has "breach of peace"
Or just give me a link to a good source( not wiki )
Thanks
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;17542762]Could you explain me what is "disruption of peace" and if it's the same has "breach of peace"
Or just give me a link to a good source( not wiki )
Thanks[/QUOTE]
The act of disturbing the peace is typically the act of attempting to, successfully or otherwise, incite violence (i.e. yelling into a microphone KILL THE MINORITIES)
A breach of the peace is mostly a British term I am not particularly familiar with but the only specific references in US law that I have referenced pertain to threats to authority figures.
[editline]09:19PM[/editline]
i.e. being noisy and disruptive is not on its own disturbing the peace.
Oh no the police enforcing the law!
Thanks Lankist
[QUOTE=Aw_Hell;17543033]Oh no the police enforcing the law![/QUOTE]
What law.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17543051]What law.[/QUOTE]
:rant:
[QUOTE=Archy;17543078]:rant:[/QUOTE]
As I've already explained permits were overturned by federal judges mere days before the protests and they are again overruled in foundation by the First Amendment.
Their claim was that they were quelling an Unlawful Assembly.
Unlawful Assembly is a riot. They were not rioting.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17543106]As I've already explained permits were overturned by federal judges mere days before the protests and they are again overruled in foundation by the First Amendment.
Their claim was that they were quelling an Unlawful Assembly.
Unlawful Assembly is a riot. They were not rioting.[/QUOTE]
:rant:
:rant:
:rant:
Read my mind, brah.
[QUOTE=Mechanical43;17543302]Stop ?[/QUOTE]
:smug: :hf: :smug:
This entire argument is dumb. Rate it thusly.
Archy: Hey guys I lost miserably so I'm going to rate posts dumb.
[QUOTE=Lankist;17543969]Archy: Hey guys I lost miserably so I'm going to rate posts dumb.[/QUOTE]
...that was a game? I thought it was a discussion. :ohdear:
Grow up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.