Cops brutally taze protester, then turn on the man filming it - Polidicks

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877040]I don't have exact distinctions as of now. I hope to write a manifesto someday and have exact definitions then.[/QUOTE] Well I look forward to reading it.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877040]There is another little thing called freedom of speech. It's not all black and white like that.[/QUOTE] Your right to free speech can't override the rights of others. You can protest on public property and you can (generally) protest on private property held to be publicly accessible, but you cannot protest on private property without the permission of the owner, otherwise it is considered trespassing. This is a very black and white issue because the basic concepts of free speech and property rights are defined simply and directly, precisely to avoid legal problems like this.

[QUOTE=catbarf;46877077]Your right to free speech can't override the rights of others. You can protest on public property and you can (generally) protest on private property held to be publicly accessible, but you cannot protest on private property without the permission of the owner, otherwise it is considered trespassing. This is a very black and white issue because the basic concepts of free speech and property rights are defined simply and directly, precisely to avoid legal problems like this.[/QUOTE] Under current law, yes, they do have that right. I don't disagree with you on that. I however, am arguing that the right to protest [I]should[/I] be expanded to allow it on private property. [QUOTE=Fort83;46877080]And no one is saying people's freedom of speech should be disregarded. Just like the owners of private property have rights that shouldn't be disregarded. Freedom of speech doesn't override the rights of others. People have every right to protest, on public property. Or private if they are given consent to do so. It's actually pretty black and white.[/QUOTE] see above

[QUOTE=Fort83;46876897]Passive resistance is still resisting arrest, which is a crime. So is trespassing. [B]If you are being arrested by the police, chances are you were doing something you shouldn't be doing.[/B][/QUOTE] *cough*fascist*cough* I don't have that much faith in the justice system. Yesterday, where I live, nine cops rolled up on a 15-year-old with guns drawn because a BMV error returned a false result on his license place. One false move and he could have been shot, all because of a computer glitch. People get arrested/beaten/shot/tased without proper cause all the damn time.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877040]Like what personal property? [/QUOTE] anything that would require the use of the space being taken up by protesters

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46876995]Wowowow, you're jumping to a lot of conclusions here. Let me break this down real quick. I know it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. I am just voicing my opinion on how the state should handle it. The grey area is on the definition of personal vs private property. Not dictatorship over capital. See above If they are creating a hazard, they are breaking a different set of laws.[/QUOTE] I'm not jumping to conclusions and there's no grey area. Entity A owns property A Entity B is on property A, and is subject to the wishes of Entity A. If Entity B does not like these wishes, Entity B must leave Property A If Entity A asked Entity B to leave Property A and Entity B does not leave, Entity A can get law enforcement involved and trespass Entity B from Property A. If, upon Law Enforcement Arrival, Entity B does not leave Property A, Law Enforcement may proceed to arresting Entity B

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877103]Under current law, yes, they do have that right. I don't disagree with you on that. I however, am arguing that the right to protest [I]should[/I] be expanded to allow it on private property. [/QUOTE] again, what defines a protest? by that definition couldn't people just use your property without your permission for any purpose under the guise of a protest?

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877040] "Just doing my job!" is a shitty excuse. I am disagreeing with the law, not the officers with this issue.[/QUOTE] It's not a shitty excuse when the reason is valid. They broke a law, the officers removed them from the property. Stop trying to justify your weird views on property ownership. A property owner, no matter the capacity, has every right to remove people from their property if their presence is unwanted for any justifiable reason. In your world where this isn't a thing, I could just waltz up onto your lawn and take a shit on your daffodils and there's not a thing you could do about it.

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;46877113]anything that would require the use of the space being taken up by protesters[/QUOTE] Well then in that scenario, they are infringing on personal property. That doesn't mean thats the case in ALL scenarios. [QUOTE=Fort83;46877118]The right to protest is allowed on private property though, if given consent by the owner(s) of the property.[/QUOTE] lemme restate that: I however, am arguing that the right to protest [I]should[/I] be expanded to allow it on private property without permission.* [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877125]I'm not jumping to conclusions and there's no grey area. Entity A owns property A Entity B is on property A, and is subject to the wishes of Entity A. If Entity B does not like these wishes, Entity B must leave Property A If Entity A asked Entity B to leave Property A and Entity B does not leave, Entity A can get law enforcement involved and trespass Entity B from Property A. If, upon Law Enforcement Arrival, Entity B does not leave Property A, Law Enforcement may proceed to arresting Entity B[/QUOTE] I'm saying you're jumping to conclusions on what I vouch for. Let's try this one more time: Under current law, yes, they do have that right. I don't disagree with you on that. I however, am arguing that the right to protest [I]should[/I] be expanded to allow it on private property without permission.

property rights become even more obfuscated when we talk about digital or intellectual property

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877103]Under current law, yes, they do have that right. I don't disagree with you on that. I however, am arguing that the right to protest [I]should[/I] be expanded to allow it on private property.[/QUOTE] "Hey, I know this property is privately owned by you, the owner, but anyone can occupy it whenever they want because they're protesting [I]something[/I]."

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877136]It's not a shitty excuse when the reason is valid. They broke a law, the officers removed them from the property. Stop trying to justify your weird views on property ownership. A property owner, no matter the capacity, has every right to remove people from their property if their presence is unwanted for any justifiable reason. In your world where this isn't a thing, I could just waltz up onto your lawn and take a shit on your daffodils and there's not a thing you could do about it.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how that qualifies as protest... [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Smallheart;46877164]"Hey, I know this property is privately owned by you, the owner, but anyone can occupy it whenever they want because they're protesting [I]something[/I]."[/QUOTE] Yep. Im sure if it was allowed, there would be people just using EVERYONES private property willy nilly because all people are assholes.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877167]I'm not sure how that qualifies as protest... [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] Yep. Im sure if it was allowed, there would be people just using EVERYONES private property willy nilly because all people are assholes.[/QUOTE] So, just so I'm clear, if people were to roll up and occupy privately owned property, they'd be hauled off, but if they came in with a sign, nothing the property owner can do? [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877167]Yep. Im sure if it was allowed, there would be people just using EVERYONES private property willy nilly because all people are assholes.[/QUOTE] Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that everyone would, or that everyone is a troll. It's just as naive to believe that there aren't people [I]some[/I] who would do that [I]just because they can[/I] as it is to suggest that I think everyone in the world is a troll.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877125]I'm not jumping to conclusions and there's no grey area. Entity A owns property A Entity B is on property A, and is subject to the wishes of Entity A. If Entity B does not like these wishes, Entity B must leave Property A If Entity A asked Entity B to leave Property A and Entity B does not leave, Entity A can get law enforcement involved and trespass Entity B from Property A. If, upon Law Enforcement Arrival, Entity B does not leave Property A, Law Enforcement may proceed to arresting Entity B[/QUOTE] Precisely. First guy had presumably been ordered to leave before the start of the clip and instead he is arguing with the cops, hence his arrest. Second guy was ordered multiple times to leave during the video and was not complying (that he was standing near his car is irrelevant, he wasn't getting into it and leaving) so he was arrested too.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877159]Well then in that scenario, they are infringing on personal property. [B]That doesn't mean thats the case in ALL scenarios.[/B] [/QUOTE] Im struggling to imagine a scenario where protesters on my property wouldn't interfere with my privacy or personal property, care to elaborate?

[QUOTE=Smallheart;46877183]So, just so I'm clear, if people were to roll up and occupy privately owned property, they'd be hauled off, but if they came in with a sign, nothing the property owner can do?[/QUOTE] A single sign doesn't make it a protest. Once they no longer actively trying to make their voices heard, they are no longer protesting.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877228]A single sign doesn't make it a protest. Once they no longer actively trying to make their voices heard, they are no longer protesting.[/QUOTE] So now, when people show up on my lawn, I have to guage the level of effort they're putting in to figure out if it's acceptable to remove them from my privately owned land?

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877228]A single sign doesn't make it a protest. Once they no longer actively trying to make their voices heard, they are no longer protesting.[/QUOTE] The problem with your system is the ease with which it can be abused.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877228][B]A single sign doesn't make it a protest[/B]. Once they no longer actively trying to make their voices heard, they are no longer protesting.[/QUOTE] then what does??? you keep making arguments without defining [I]anything[/I]

[QUOTE=Smallheart;46877183]Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that everyone would, or that everyone is a troll. It's just as naive to believe that there aren't people [I]some[/I] who would do that [I]just because they can[/I] as it is to suggest that I think everyone in the world is a troll.[/QUOTE] Can you give me a scenario where someone would just protest something nonsensical on someones property just because? I can't think of any. [QUOTE=Timebomb575;46877191]Im struggling to imagine a scenario where protesters on my property wouldn't interfere with my privacy or personal property, care to elaborate?[/QUOTE] Picketing a yard? Holding a rally in an empty parking lot? Distributing pamphlets in a store?[QUOTE=Fort83;46877204]I'm having trouble understanding why you'd want that though. Allowing people to protest on private property without permission kinda defeats the purpose of it being private property.[/QUOTE] What about building, housing, commercial use, or literally any other use for a piece of land? [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Smallheart;46877235]So now, when people show up on my lawn, I have to guage the level of effort they're putting in to figure out if it's acceptable to remove them from my privately owned land?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Apache249;46877239]The problem with your system is the ease with which it can be abused.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Timebomb575;46877245]then what does??? you keep making arguments without defining [I]anything[/I][/QUOTE] According to dictionary.com, "a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something". Any action that isn't that isn't protesting.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877280]Can you give me a scenario where someone would just protest something nonsensical on someones property just because? I can't think of any.[/QUOTE] It might not be nonsensical to them. If they're adamant believers that rape is okay because it's the woman's fault, they could protest the laws in place against rape. Who's gonna want to allow that on their private property? [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877280]Picketing a yard? Holding a rally in an empty parking lot? Distributing pamphlets in a store?[/QUOTE] Why rally in an empty parking lot? Would you not get more attention out on the street? If you're referring to a lumber/industrial yard, there are safety concerns that could result in lawsuits if anyone could just waltz in with signs and get hurt by heavy machinery. And distributing pamphlets in a store? What about the contents of those pamphlets? "See Above" [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877280]What about building, housing, commercial use, or literally any other use for a piece of land?[/QUOTE] I don't understand what you mean by this statement. It shouldn't matter what the land owner is using the land for as long as it's within legal bounds, and if they own it and don't want you there, they should have the right to ask you to leave. [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877280]According to dictionary.com, "a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something". Any action that isn't that isn't protesting.[/QUOTE] Again, having a sign with something written on it that challenges something in place would be an action expressing disapproval or of objection to something. So yeah, in your system some kids could show up and as long as they're wearing t-shirts that say, "rape is always consensual," they can't be asked to leave.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877159] Let's try this one more time: Under current law, yes, they do have that right. I don't disagree with you on that. I however, am arguing that the right to protest [I]should[/I] be expanded to allow it on private property without permission.[/QUOTE] That's exactly what I'm calling you out on. There is no scenario in which protesting on privately owned property without permission or consent from the property owner is acceptable, and in no way should it ever be made so you cannot have unwelcome visitors trespassed from your property. That infringes upon the rights of property owners, which as outlined in the constitution, trump the rights of an individual or group to free speech.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877280]What about building, housing, commercial use, or literally any other use for a piece of land?[/QUOTE] Permission [I]from the property owner[/I].

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877167]I'm not sure how that qualifies as protest... [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] Yep. Im sure if it was allowed, there would be people just using EVERYONES private property willy nilly because all people are assholes.[/QUOTE] That's exactly the point. It may or may not be protest but I can say it is and you can't do anything about it. And yes, there WOULD be. People already abuse the somewhat lax trespassing laws, they'd abuse it even more if they couldn't be ejected from the premises. The fact that you fail to understand this shows your naiveté.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877280]According to dictionary.com, "a statement or action expressing disapproval of or objection to something". Any action that isn't that isn't protesting.[/QUOTE] Okay, Guy A wants to express his objection to not being able to party wherever he wants, so he throws a party in your backyard. Invites a whole gang of people over. Seems to meet that definition. [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] My point being you have to draw the line somewhere.

Why don't we just ignore/stop debating this with Soccerskyman? He obviously doesn't understand the core concept of what "private land ownership" entails, or if he does he's purposefully ignoring it to create an argument or he honestly believes that personal property ownership shouldn't be a thing.

[QUOTE=Smallheart;46877320]It might not be nonsensical to them. If they're adamant believers that rape is okay because it's the woman's fault, they could protest the laws in place against rape. Who's gonna want to allow that on their private property? Why rally in an empty parking lot? Would you not get more attention out on the street? If you're referring to a lumber/industrial yard, there are safety concerns that could result in lawsuits if anyone could just waltz in with signs and get hurt by heavy machinery. And distributing pamphlets in a store? What about the contents of those pamphlets? "See above" I don't understand what you mean by this statement. It shouldn't matter what the land owner is using the land for as long as it's within legal bounds, and if they own it and don't want you there, they should have the right to ask you to leave.[/QUOTE] Whether or not the owner of the land agrees [I]should[/I] be irrelevant. Its freedom of speech, not "freedom of speech if I agree with it". It would, but that would interfere with others rights to safety. If they are choose to go to a dangerous place, then they are blatantly disregarding the (hopefully posted) signs warning of such dangers, and [I]should[/I] be under their own responsibility. As for the pamphlets, see above. I disagree with the law is all I'm saying. I think that the ability to force protest off private property endangers the effectiveness of protest.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877387]Whether or not the owner of the land agrees [I]should[/I] be irrelevant. Its freedom of speech, not "freedom of speech if I agree with it".[/QUOTE] No. It shouldn't, because then one person's freedom of speech is trumping another person's rights. [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877387]It would, but that would interfere with others rights to safety. If they are choose to go to a dangerous place, then they are blatantly disregarding the (hopefully posted) signs warning of such dangers, and should be under their own responsibility.[/QUOTE] At this point you're creating loopholes for people to abuse the tresspassing laws, as well as setting up loopholes for scenarios that could and would result in lawsuits. And if you think that there aren't people who take advantage of any situation in order to get money from a court settlement, you're either unfathomably optimistic or some kind of radical socialist. [QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877387]As for the pamphlets, see above.[/QUOTE] As for your see above, see above.

[QUOTE=Smallheart;46877320] Again, having a sign with something written on it that challenges something in place would be an action expressing disapproval or of objection to something. So yeah, in your system some kids could show up and as long as they're wearing t-shirts that say, "rape is always consensual," they can't be asked to leave.[/QUOTE] If all they are doing is just standing there, then why does it matter? They aren't doing anything that isn't protesting in that scenario. While I strongly disagree, I am not gonna limit their speech. [QUOTE=AlexConnor;46877326]Permission [I]from the property owner[/I].[/QUOTE] I don't follow what you are trying to say. [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877345]That's exactly the point. It may or may not be protest but I can say it is and you can't do anything about it. And yes, there WOULD be. People already abuse the somewhat lax trespassing laws, they'd abuse it even more if they couldn't be ejected from the premises. The fact that you fail to understand this shows your naiveté.[/QUOTE] You have to be joking. Why the hell would people just protest something? Why does it matter if they are? This is the same argument soccer moms use against marijuana legalization! "Well then EVERYONE would be high all the time!" [QUOTE=Apache249;46877351]Okay, Guy A wants to express his objection to not being able to party wherever he wants, so he throws a party in your backyard. Invites a whole gang of people over. Seems to meet that definition. [editline]7th January 2015[/editline] My point being you have to draw the line somewhere.[/QUOTE] Right on, more power to them! If they aren't destroying property which is an entirely different set of laws, I don't see the problem. [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;46877363]Why don't we just ignore/stop debating this with Soccerskyman? He obviously doesn't understand the core concept of what "private land ownership" entails, or if he does he's purposefully ignoring it to create an argument or he honestly believes that personal property ownership shouldn't be a thing.[/QUOTE] I'm an anarcho-communist. I do want to dismantle private property (again, maintaining respect with personal property). If you choose to ignore or berate me for my views, go ahead.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;46877425][B][U]I'm an anarcho-communist.[/U][/B][/QUOTE] Oh okay I'm done now bye.