Print

[LetsGoWings]

I have no interest in getting into a peeing contest about this, but yes, I still support them entirely. I didn't respond because I think that folks with your strong opinion that these people are  simply "loony" are getting one-sided information from rabid talk shows and aren't hearing the real message from the movement.

I will preface this with I am not a Tea Party supporter.

Can't the same thing be said about the way the Tea Party has been received? They both have their goals and they both are, for the most part, protesting peacefully. Why is one considered "loony" by many and the other is considered protesting for America? Anyone can decide which one is "loony" and which one is considered protesting for America because it applies to both sides of the fence.

[Baby Hitler]

That is flawless logic. Do something extremely illegal and the cops will leave you alone. 

Also, even though they have their right to peacefully protest, they also have to obey the laws set in place by the city/state they are protesting in. If the city/state has a rule that says they need to be out of the park after 10pm(or any other time or any no tents allowed or no relieving themselves) they are supposed to leave the park at that time or face possible police intervention.

 It is a relatively simple concept protest peacefully and obey the laws and the cops should leave you alone. I would feel bad for them if they were doing this, but they are not for the most part.

I guess people protesting after hours really do deserve to be shot in the face at point blank range with tear gas grenades.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[old salt]

Tea party protests have had no rapes, no acts of violence, no acts of vandalism, no flag burning and no arrests.

FB,
Who got shot at point blank range?

[LetsGoWings]

I guess people protesting after hours really do deserve to be shot in the face at point blank range with tear gas grenades.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Never said that was ok, but the police have the right to break up an unlawful protest, which that was. Do you not agree with that? Should people be able to unlawfully protest all the time?

[Baby Hitler]

Tea party protests have had no rapes, no acts of violence, no acts of vandalism, no flag burning and no arrests.

FB,
Who got shot at point blank range?

An Iraqi war veteran. And then, the people that went to help him were also fired upon.

[Baby Hitler]

Never said that was ok, but the police have the right to break up an unlawful protest, which that was. Do you not agree with that? Should people be able to unlawfully protest all the time?

Ummm I think that is exactly how this country was founded was it not?

[LetsGoWings]

Ummm I think that is exactly how this country was founded was it not?

So yes or no, they should be able to break the rules at these protests? They have their constitutional rights, but they also have to obey the laws of the protest.

Whether you want to admit it or not, if they break the rules then they face the potential of police intervention and use of non-lethal force to get them to leave the scene of an unlawful protest. Now the police intervention should not use grenades in that matter. They also need to break the protest up somehow.

[ducksoup]

So yes or no, they should be able to break the rules at these protests? They have their constitutional rights, but they also have to obey the laws of the protest.

Whether you want to admit it or not, if they break the rules then they face the potential of police intervention and use of non-lethal force to get them to leave the scene of an unlawful protest. Now the police intervention should not use grenades in that matter. They also need to break the protest up somehow.

]So, your legal opinion is that local laws and rules trump the Constitution?

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that occupation type protests ARE ruled as free speech expressions.

[Baby Hitler]

So yes or no, they should be able to break the rules at these protests? They have their constitutional rights, but they also have to obey the laws of the protest.

Whether you want to admit it or not, if they break the rules then they face the potential of police intervention and use of non-lethal force to get them to leave the scene of an unlawful protest. Now the police intervention should not use grenades in that matter. They also need to break the protest up somehow.

If they aren't being violent then yes, they should be allowed to continue to protest.

Some rules were meant to be broken. But I guess we will have to have another Kent State incident on our hands before some people figure that out.

[LetsGoWings]

]So, your legal opinion is that local laws and rules trump the Constitution?

The Supreme Court has previously ruled that occupation type protests ARE ruled as free speech expressions.

Can you show me the case? I found one that show it has ruled sitdown protests are not protected under the first amendment.

I found this:
http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/11/03/ows-force-supreme-court-ruling-free-speech/

So looks like they haven't ruled on the case yet.

[LetsGoWings]

If they aren't being violent then yes, they should be allowed to continue to protest.

Some rules were meant to be broken. But I guess we will have to have another Kent State incident on our hands before some people figure that out.

So the rule that is meant to be broken is "we are allowed to stay in the park after 2am in Atlanta"? What is the big deal about protesting from whenever the park opens until 2am, go back home to sleep, and come back in the morning, repeat. However, whether you want to admit it or not as soon as the protest becomes an unlawful protest police have the right to break it up (again not by attempting to seriously injure).

[old salt]

An Iraqi war veteran. And then, the people that went to help him were also fired upon.

Thanks for the info.  As long as you weren't referring to Scott Olsen.  Seems to have been a mistake to think the cops fired at him.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/confirmed-vet-scott-olsens-injuries-were-not-caused-by-sheriffs-deputies/

[LetsGoWings]

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 US 288 - Supreme Court 1984
The issue in this case is whether a National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping in certain parks violates the First Amendment when applied to prohibit demonstrators from sleeping in Lafayette Park and the Mall in connection with a demonstration intended to call attention to the plight of the homeless. We hold that it does not and reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court case backs that up.

Also from the case "Expression, whether oral or written or symbolized by conduct, is subject to reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. We have often noted that restrictions of this kind are valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information."

[old salt]

If they aren't being violent then yes, they should be allowed to continue to protest.

Do you consider this violent? Or just looney?

[Baby Hitler]

Occupy protesters disavow Oakland violence

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20111103/D9QPG82O0.html

Then, as now, police blamed the violence on a small group of anarchists, many from outside the city.