so if the police are occupied with this silliness, what about an instance when someone is being harmed and an officer cannot respond? do the victims then have the right to protection under the law?
serious, since when the fuck do these people care about their community? they have been raised on don t snitch..
Nothing personal, but when someone begins with "on the flip side" they are only filing a different form of complaint or grievance with the world. I have ZERO complaints or grievances with the world and with other people's choices so I don't ever give attention to The Flip Side.
I just focus on letting all people do what they want however they want.
After all, that is how I myself live.
People's travel plans will be altered, some might lose $$$ for missing flights not to mention the headache of airport traffic in general. Political beliefs should not negatively impact the flow of everyday life of innocent bystanders. Let them find a different forum or vehicle. Besides, it's mostly white college kids now who are dying for a "cause" to latch onto.
1) Yes and as long as the two groups engage in non-violent fashion the police cannot shut one or the other down. That is the core of all 'dueling' protests in the USA since it's inception.
2) Yes.......provided there is in fact reason to believe there is a fire in the building.
But more specifically those participating in the cited gathering are constitutionally protected by their right to peacefully assemble. The content of their speech is not what is being challenged by either the mall owners or the State.
The First Amendment is not absolute and while I totally disagree with the vermin associated with black lives matter, they are subject to time, place and manner restrictions. You cannot allow lawlessness and they should be required to get permits and they should not be allowed to disrupt anyone else. Naturally the same would hold for anyone that wants to assemble and picket.
Your point of view is certainly not unpopular. But case law demonstrates that freedom of assembly can only be state-regulated in very narrow exceptions.
Thus the very quick and succinct ruling by the federal judge this past 72 hours. The mall was able to receive a legal order to enjoin three specific individuals from entering the mall, but no such restriction can be preemptively levied against the citizenry at large.
The police can themselves assemble for the purpose of accurately identifying people who are in clear violation of the mall's private property rights, but it has to occur after the individual has clearly acted.
Stopping people from entering a quasi-public location without cause is frankly impossible to implement and also illegal.
So what they did today, the police (supposedly in most cases) waited til persons entered the mall property AND began participation in an organized disruption of private business to make legal arrests
C'mon Barman...you are slipping....you used to put up more relevant arguements to validate your point.....
1.) That's not the context or goal of thier protest and you know it.
2.) Are you kidding me?...."providing you believe there is reason to believe there is a fire in the building"..?...Do I really have to explain that there is really no fire when the person yells it?....Do you know that what I said is an actual quote from an actual Supreme Court (famous) ruling?
The SCOTUS ruling to which you refer has been more firmly delineated in a number of rulings bysubsequent courts. A person can possibly be charged with Inciting a panic, but it's a very narrow exception.
While you or I might presume we know the motivations of the planned assembly in Minnesota (or any other location), we cannot get the State to preemptively impede such lawful assembly. We (the mall owners in this example) can call on the police to arrest people once they move from assembly to disruption but the latter is the 'crime' worthy of legal state intervention, not the former.
The mall owners sought to criminalize the assembly and were summarily shut down. Once the people came - legally - into the mall and began their disruptive activities only then were they subject to arrest.
The primary challenge being presented is the police being able to accurately identify true disturbers of the peace from those (black shoppers in general) who were present but not intending to unduly disrupt the business activity. I am not following this specific story line out of general apathy but I would presume few people were actually arrested. In most cases the police used their collective physical presence to remove suspected protestors from the premises and those not wanting to push the issue retreated forthwith.
My eyes hurt reading your post Steve...
The ruling is the law of the land...it hasn't been delineated. It is as clear as clear can be.....I quoted verbatim and you are trying to twist it...
The court did not rule for the demonstrators (as you are trying to make people believe), they ruled against such unlawful protests, but since only 3 (I believe) people could be named ahead of time in the court briefs, they were the only ones barred from attending. BLM did not give the Mall a list of names of people ahead of time, or they all would have been barred.
The ruling is the law of the land...it hasn't been delineated. It is as clear as clear can be.....I quoted verbatim and you are trying to twist it...
The court did not rule for the demonstrators (as you are trying to make people believe), they ruled against such unlawful protests, but since only 3 (I believe) people could be named ahead of time in the court briefs, they were the only ones barred from attending. BLM did not give the Mall a list of names of people ahead of time, or they all would have been barred.
It will be a more interesting story once the MPD releases video recordings of their officer killing an unarmed black man last month.
They claim that releasing it will 'interfere w the investigation' but five weeks have passed. If a black citizen had killed a police officer, the video would be fully available to the public & media within a few hours.
They claim that releasing it will 'interfere w the investigation' but five weeks have passed. If a black citizen had killed a police officer, the video would be fully available to the public & media within a few hours.
Correct. The court did not rule 'for the demonstrators'. Rather, the court ruled Against the request of the mall to preemptively impede random people in general from assembling in a quasi-public space daily frequented by thousands of random people.
There is no way such a 'list' could be provided. The three individuals had established history and were enjoined from being on the private property. Citizenry at large cannot be preemptively impeded, thus the ruling and the need for police to wait for truly unlawful disturbances to occur
The oft quoted 'shouting Fire! in a theater' is a straw man frequently presented as a support for someone seeking an exception to the virtually unbridled freedom of expression granted by the First Amendment.
My own earlier reference to that ruling have been more clearly delineated was a reminder that only in extremely few examples has public or private speech been legally penalized.
The complaintant (police, prosecutor, state) presents to the court that 'this example of speech is equal in adversity to shouting Fire! in a crowded theater!
The courts review the cited speech and in virtually all such cases which have risen to the SCOTUS level, the final ruling was that in fact, the cited expression did NOT break the bar established in the Fire/theatre ruling.
Thus when someone leads with that reference, it's accurate to project their complaint will very rarely hold up
My own earlier reference to that ruling have been more clearly delineated was a reminder that only in extremely few examples has public or private speech been legally penalized.
The complaintant (police, prosecutor, state) presents to the court that 'this example of speech is equal in adversity to shouting Fire! in a crowded theater!
The courts review the cited speech and in virtually all such cases which have risen to the SCOTUS level, the final ruling was that in fact, the cited expression did NOT break the bar established in the Fire/theatre ruling.
Thus when someone leads with that reference, it's accurate to project their complaint will very rarely hold up
