Wall street protests continue, 80+ protestors arrested - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32540612]In this case, they have to also have permission to be there. If you do not go through proper channels, it is not considered a "Peaceable Assembly" and is therefor not protected. If they had gone through proper channels, they could stand out there all they wanted and probably even get police protection if they wanted. And don't pull that "But they'd never get permission!" bullshit. It happens all the time. And if they deny it without a valid reason, then they are in violation of the constitution. So, here is the question: Did they even try to go through proper channels, or did they just start gathering up suddenly with no warning?[/QUOTE] "Proper channels"? And say what, "Oh hey, we'd like to protest on Wall Street, can you guys block off the streets for us?"

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32540634]"Proper channels"? And say what, "Oh hey, we'd like to protest on Wall Street, can you guys block off the streets for us?"[/QUOTE]Pretty much exactly that but in a less assholish way. Yes.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32540767]Pretty much exactly that but in a less assholish way. Yes.[/QUOTE] I suppose if they'd done that then these women wouldn't be getting pepper-sprayed for no reason and the police wouldn't be reaching across the barriers to pull on people, eh?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32541053]I suppose if they'd done that then these women wouldn't be getting pepper-sprayed for no reason and the police wouldn't be reaching across the barriers to pull on people, eh?[/QUOTE]Err, yeah? That hard to understand or something? Its pretty good of them to not have dispersed the crowd completely by this point.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32533954]He's right in a sense of factuality, but not right in the sense of morality.[/QUOTE] Still won't stop people from doing it though.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541082]Err, yeah? That hard to understand or something? Its pretty good of them to not have dispersed the crowd completely by this point.[/QUOTE] It is most certainly not "good of them".

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32541151]It is most certainly not "good of them".[/QUOTE]Considering they'd be well within their right to do so, and it'd be completely legal by both local laws and the Constitution, yes. Yes it is.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541208]Considering they'd be well within their right to do so, and it'd be completely legal by both local laws and the Constitution, yes. Yes it is.[/QUOTE] It would be legal according to the constitution for the NYPD to prevent lawful assembly? Are you drunk?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541208]Considering they'd be well within their right to do so, and it'd be completely legal by both local laws and the Constitution, yes. Yes it is.[/QUOTE] You think police can just willfully arrest any and all groups of people that happen to be congregating? Yeah, I don't think so.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32541220]It would be legal according to the constitution for the NYPD to prevent lawful assembly? Are you drunk?[/QUOTE]Apparently you forgot how to read. Go back and reread my previous posts.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541235]Apparently you forgot how to read. Go back and reread my previous posts.[/QUOTE] What "proper channels" were you even referencing earlier?

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32541231]You think police can just willfully arrest any and all groups of people that happen to be congregating? Yeah, I don't think so.[/QUOTE]Now you're going in to the realm of Hyperbole.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541255]Now you're going in to the realm of Hyperbole.[/QUOTE] Then what is the justification for arresting and pepper-spraying these protesters when they aren't committing any real crime? Freedom of assembly is guaranteed in the constitution for fuck's sake.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32541243]What "proper channels" were you even referencing earlier?[/QUOTE]For assemblies and such on public property, you have to go through the local government in some form to acquire the necessary authorization. This insures that it can be accommodated for in all necessary ways.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32541273]Then what is the justification for arresting and pepper-spraying these protesters when they aren't committing any real crime? Freedom of assembly is guaranteed in the constitution for fuck's sake.[/QUOTE] So that the ruling elite in power can stay in power. That being the real reason they have.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32541273]Then what is the justification for arresting and pepper-spraying these protesters when they aren't committing any real crime? Freedom of assembly is guaranteed in the constitution for fuck's sake.[/QUOTE]Failure to do so (see previous post) is a crime and considered unlawful assembly. It is not protected by the Constitution. End of story.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541235]Apparently you forgot how to read. Go back and reread my previous posts.[/QUOTE] Where in the united states constitution does it say people need a license or permit to use the first amendment

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32541309]Where in the united states constitution does it say people need a license or permit to use the first amendment[/QUOTE]Its not, its one of those things deferred to the states by the opposite side of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment. This has been the case for a long time. Why do you think all the protests by groups you don't like aren't broken up? They got permission. You can't be turned away just because they don't like your cause or because your cause is unpopular or whatever. They have to give a legitimate reason. If they don't, then they have broken the law and violated your right to assembly.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541278]For assemblies and such on public property, you have to go through the local government in some form to acquire the necessary authorization. This insures that it can be accommodated for in all necessary ways.[/QUOTE] Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You can't make laws that abridge the rights guaranteed by the constitution. And the Supreme Court ruling re-affirming the right to assembly: In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court held that "the right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning Congress for a redress of grievances, or for anything else connected with the powers or duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under protection of, and guaranteed by, the United States."

what a bunch of idiot protesters half of them are probably there just to call the police pigs right in their faces and act like general douchebags instead of peacefully protesting like civilized fucking people

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;32541351]Its not, its one of those things deferred to the states by the opposite side of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment. This has been the case for a long time. Why do you think all the protests by groups you don't like aren't broken up? They got permission. You can't be turned away just because they don't like your cause or because your cause is unpopular or whatever. They have to give a legitimate reason. If they don't, then they have broken the law and violated your right to assembly.[/QUOTE] And no, that isn't left to the states, the 14th amendment was created specifically so that individual states couldn't infringe on these rights: [quote]One example is the First Amendment, which says only that "Congress shall make no law...", and under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion. A rule of inapplicability to the states remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/quote] [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=KingKombat;32541417]what a bunch of idiot protesters half of them are probably there just to call the police pigs right in their faces and act like general douchebags instead of peacefully protesting like civilized fucking people[/QUOTE] Great job completely mischaracterizing the entire event.

[url]http://www.lincoln.edu/criminaljustice/hr/Assembly.htm[/url] This goes over the whole of the Right to Assembly. Both of our points are covered and converge. Quite frankly, the only way to decide who is actually right is if the issue were taken to a court, which will probably happen. Then, we'll find out. It actually has the potential to establish a strong precedent for future cases, depending on the ruling.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32541431]Great job completely mischaracterizing the entire event.[/QUOTE] i have no doubt it's for a good purpose but let's be real, these arrests happened for a reason

[QUOTE=KingKombat;32541886]i have no doubt it's for a good purpose but let's be real, these arrests happened for a reason[/QUOTE]Yeah, maybe so. But I'm pretty sure its not for the reasons you have in mind. At all.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32485380]That they're educated?[/QUOTE] That they're inexperienced.

[QUOTE=KingKombat;32541886]i have no doubt it's for a good purpose but let's be real, these arrests happened for a reason[/QUOTE] the arrests happened because someone let the NYPD's leash out too far

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32493801]Apathy doesn't fix problems. And for many people, life isn't as "easy as it is".[/QUOTE] Yeah, and those people are all working, rather than attacking the police on their parents money.

[QUOTE=KingKombat;32541886]i have no doubt it's for a good purpose but let's be real, these arrests happened for a reason[/QUOTE] That woman was pepper-sprayed for a reason? The officers grabbing across the barricades do it for a reason? [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32542365]Yeah, and those people are all working, rather than attacking the police on their parents money.[/QUOTE] Yes, because every person protesting is there on their parent's money.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;32479596][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LaAEnB9owY[/media][/QUOTE] Anarchist agitator scum. [editline]29th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;32475129]Well the corporations runs America, do something or sit in the corner and cry like a little bitch.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9rCc4SZNSI[/media]

[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32534247]You keep saying this as if it has a point. It does NOT fucking matter what morals some people may not agree with when you're dealing with the rule of law.[/quote] I don't even know what you're talking about. Of course it matters what people's moralities are. [quote]The constitution, whether you like it or not, is the US' rule of law. If you break it, expect punishment.[/quote] It's only applicable if it's enforced. If no one is willing or able to enforce the US constitution, then it might as well not exist. Mexico is a good example of this, drug cartels have close to free reign in many parts of Mexico. It's against the laws for the cartels to operate, and it's against the law to murder policemen, but both happen and people are rarely punished for it. The Mexican police in many states are unwilling and unable to enforce the rule of law, so the law might as well not be there. [quote]But what exactly ARE rights, and what you think are rights could be different from what another person thinks are rights.[/QUOTE] This has no point, it's just repeating something I said in another thread. Of course rights are different from person to person, that's why rights are suppressed. I might believe I have a right to freely practice my own religion, but everyone else might disagree with me and suppress that right.