[spacemanspiff]

http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/2913137p-2948461c.html

COLD WATER: Man whose son is a Marine in Iraq is cited by police in incident.


By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: April 9, 2003)
Several anti-war protesters, including a middle-aged Quaker woman holding a sign saying "Consider the Children," were doused with a bucket of cold water at Soldotna's main intersection last week by a man standing in the back of a passing pickup truck.

Soldotna fishing guide Jeff Webster, who has a son in the Marines in Iraq, was tracked down by Soldotna police and cited for harassment, a misdemeanor.

A week earlier, he had done the same thing to two women holding signs at the same corner. At first the protesters turned the other cheek, despite freezing temperatures.

"We said pressing charges didn't seem in keeping with the peace theme," said Sherry Kasukonis, 55, one of the small band of war opponents who carry signs to the Soldotna "Y" corner every weekday at 5 p.m.

"It's a hostile environment, no question about it," she said. "We get so much absolutely filthy abuse out there. It's nothing you can repeat in the paper."

In an interview, Webster said he did it and he's glad -- though he said he doesn't plan to do it again.

"I warned 'em both days. You can't get through to them," Webster said. "They sure scattered once they got wet."

Webster said he's been gratified by the number of total strangers calling up to thank him and offer to pay any fines. He said he has a digital video of the incident that he's passing along via e-mail.

"At the troop rally over the weekend, a guy I didn't know suggested doing a spaghetti feed to pay any legal fees."

There won't be any legal fees, Webster said. He plans to plead guilty when he is arraigned in Kenai court April 17.

"I threw water," Webster said. "I was just trying to get my message across. Go home."

The case is the only known criminal incident around war protests in Alaska so far. The charge of harassment, which falls short of an assault, can be filed when a person is subjected to "offensive physical contact." Penalties extend up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

The first drive-by dousing took place March 24, Soldotna police said. Webster stood in the back of a pickup truck driven by a friend and dumped a 5-gallon bucket of water on Kasukonis and another woman at the corner of the Sterling Highway and the Kenai Spur Highway.

Kasukonis said they were soaked but didn't budge.

"I would have stood there and frozen to death before I'd have left," she said.

Her poster that day had a picture of an Iraqi girl holding a lamb.

"We've been real careful not to have offensive or inflammatory signs," said Kasukonis, a Quaker and a pacifist. "The question is how can you keep this message of peace before people without inflaming people and making it worse?"

She said the daily protest is informal and reflects different opinions. She said the group has included students, teachers, retirees, lawyers and her husband, a doctor.

The group, never more than a dozen, admits it's a minority. Kenai-Soldotna has been the scene of several large flag-waving support-the-troops rallies in recent weeks.

But many who disagree with them have been polite, members said. They've also received support from people who say they feel too intimidated to join, they said.

"There's been a lot of positive reaction. I was really surprised by that," said protest organizer Karli Kay, 19, a Soldotna native whose husband is in the Air Force in Germany.

Kasukonis said the group was worried about threats of violence on a local radio call-in show and on fliers taped to lampposts at the intersection. The fliers recommend punching advocates of nonviolence repeatedly in the nose "until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid an argument he/she is making."

The group asked police to talk to Webster after the first incident.

"The fellow who dumped water does have a son serving over there," Kasukonis said. "I'm sure that to him he sees us as a direct threat to his son. It doesn't excuse it but you have to be aware of the stresses he's under."

When Webster wouldn't promise police he would stop, the group was advised to keep their cell phones handy.

Webster returned on April 1, this time with two full buckets.

"I'm highly offended by what they have to say," Webster said this week. He lives a long block up the road from the protest, in a house whose yard trees are swaddled with yellow ribbons. His son, Shawn, a 22-year-old Soldotna High graduate, is now fighting with the Marines.

Webster said he grew frustrated driving past the intersection every evening.

"There's nobody driving through the Y that's making any decisions about this war. All you're trying to do is divide the population," he said. "I think they're showing our future enemies how to beat America from within."

He was asked whether dissenters had the right to speak freely.

"That's a valid right. It's their right. It doesn't mean it is right," he said. "You protest before the war. But not right now. There's a time to talk your way out of a fistfight. That's before it happens. Once it starts, the way out of it is to win it."

Reporter Tom Kizzia can be reached at tkizzia@adn.com or in Homer at 235-4244.

[hutch24]

:neener: I saw them out there a couple weeks ago. All I could do is laugh.

btw: Before anyone asks, no I was not driving the truck for this guy. :evil:

[cool45auto]

:D :D

[twoblink]

<golf-clap>

The thing that is not mentioned is that a bucket of water is nothing; it's his polite way of saying get away..

But the anti's on the other hand..

have you seen the scenes in Jakarata? They are looting the McDonalds and BurgerKing and KFC..

War is tamer than the "Peace Mongers"...

[Keith_Yorktown]

Several anti-war protesters, including a middle-aged Quaker woman holding a sign saying "Consider the Children,"

Guess the fact that we liberated 150 CHILDREN from an Iraqi jail doesn't hold any sway with these people...

:fire:

We should hold these "peace" protestors accountable by sending them to Iraq to witness the tyrany Saddam created for themselves.

[spacemanspiff]

http://www.adn.com/front/story/3032706p-3056587c.html

State adds charges against Soldotna anti-protester
WATER: Prosecutors say man's actions violated demonstrators' rights.


By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: April 29, 2003)
State prosecutors stepped up the case Monday against the defiant father of a Marine who says he was being patriotic when he dumped water on war protesters standing at Soldotna's main intersection.

Four new misdemeanor charges, including more serious charges of assault and violation of constitutional rights, were filed in state court Monday against Soldotna fishing guide Jeff Webster.

Webster, 44, has admitted twice pouring buckets of cold water from a passing pickup on the protesters in March and early April. He was originally charged with harassment. The new fourth-degree assault charge came from another incident, when prosecutors say Webster pushed and threatened a male protester.

Two other new counts accuse Webster of violating the demonstrators' rights under the Alaska Constitution to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The law says one cannot intentionally injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate another person in an attempt to deprive them of their rights.

Webster said Monday he would plead not guilty to all charges.

"I don't regret it. They can charge me with what they want," Webster said.

Webster's lawyer, Wayne Anthony Ross of Anchorage, could not be reached for comment Monday. An aide said he was in Florida attending the convention of the National Rifle Association, on whose board he serves.

On the day of Webster's arraignment, Ross argued that the state shouldn't prosecute Webster because he was sticking up for his son, a Marine stationed in Iraq.

In a letter to a newspaper last week, Webster claimed the demonstrators were targeting him personally with their daily sign protests during the war because of his son. The intersection is not far from Webster's home, where trees in the yard are tied with yellow ribbons.

"I have rights also," Webster wrote to the Peninsula Clarion. "I have the right to not have to see an adult male war protester holding a sign in front of me mentioning Marine casualties."

He went on to address people who had written letters critical of his behavior, accusing them of siding with the protesters and opposing American soldiers in Iraq.

"I don't believe in protesting during a war or flag burning or spitting on returning soldiers like you do," he wrote. "Therefore, I will not apologize for my beliefs nor my actions. I just don't respect you."

Webster produced a video of the second drive-by dousing, set to patriotic music, which was widely distributed via e-mail.

He originally said he would plead guilty. He changed his mind, he said, after friends and strangers urged him to fight the harassment charge in court. Ross, a conservative Republican who has campaigned twice for governor, volunteered his services to defend Webster.

On March 24, Webster threw water on two women holding signs at the Soldotna Y intersection. He had gone by two days earlier threatening to douse them, the district attorney said.

"Both women were soaked and one of the signs became unreadable," the charging document said.

Soldotna police, contacted by the demonstrators, warned Webster not to do it again.

A week later, according to information filed in court Monday, Webster returned and was "confrontational" verbally to two women and more physical with the one man present, Daniel Funk.

"He threatened to beat up Mr. Funk, while pushing against Mr. Funk with his stomach and his arm, causing Mr. Funk to back away. Mr. Funk stated that he believed he was going to have to defend himself at any moment," the charging document said.

Fourth-degree assault can be charged when a person is placed in fear of imminent physical injury.

Webster returned April 1, again with another person driving, and from the back of his truck threw two buckets of water at the demonstrators. Ten protesters were involved in the incidents with Webster, the prosecutor said.

The incidents were the only ones in Alaska over the war resulting in criminal charges.

The new charges, including an additional harassment charge, were filed by assistant district attorney June Stein, who declined to comment on the case. Attorney General Gregg Renkes said he has confidence in Stein and Kenai District Attorney Dwayne McConnell, who decided to increase the charges.

"They were trying to work something out with the defendant, and that hasn't occurred," Renkes said Monday. "Based on the description (in the charges) of what occurred out there, it appears the charges are justified."

The attorney general said the case involves constitutionally protected speech.

"We're fighting the war to protect the freedoms we have here in this country," Renkes said. "People don't have the right to harass people expressing their opinions lawfully."

Reporter Tom Kizzia can be reached at tkizzia@adn.com or in Homer at 1-907-235-4244.

[CZ-75]

More than just the protestors are "all wet."

Violating their rights? :rolleyes:

[Dave P]

Is there no end to legal harassment???

BTW, how bout we sue the moderators here when they lock a thread? Or sue the dude that cuts you off in traffic?

Help - let me off!

[CZ-75]

Stupidity has reached the "last frontier."

[CMichael]

How do I get the videotape via Internet? :D

[jmbg29]

If the ladies were standing there peaceably and holding their signs (and nothing suggests they were doing otherwise) then he had no right to dump water on them. If he didn't like what their signs said, he had every right to stand on the corner and tell them why, or he could stand there with his own sign, or he could simply STFU and/or STFD.

Whatever jail time the judge gives him, will have been earned. Just as any "peace" protester that breaks the law through intimidation tactics would. I hope they give him the maximum sentence.

FWIW, I would have charged him with assault. He used the water to strike people that had done nothing illegal. They weren't a threat to him, they weren't damaging property, tresspassing, etc... being hit by 5 gallons of water thrown from the back of a moving truck hurts more than a slap in the face would.

[HankB]

First charges of harassment, followed up by assault and violation of constitutional rights charges . . . sounds like someone "got" to the prosecutors.

Hmmm . . . I wonder how often PETA or other animal rights fanatic protestors have had a court pile on multiple charges after they spilled paint (not water) on women wearing fur . . .

[CMichael]

How about those pro-appeasement protesters who threw rocks at police were they charged with assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder?

[grampster]

Actions have consequences. The protesters should accept the consequences of harrasing the father of a marine combatant with their protest signs. If they were really interested in "peace", they should have peacefully removed themselves to another place in town that was less confrontational to the father of the marine. And again, if they are peacefull folks, they should refuse to press charges as well.

Grampster:banghead:

[CZ-75]

Harrassment? Yes.

Assault? You're pushing it.

Violation of Constitutional Rights? You've hit one out of the park, right over LEFT field.

[KP95DAO]

Perhaps the water thrower should remind himself that Alaska is a CCW state. If I had been that Mr. Funk, he would have had something more serious than charges to deal with.

[Smurfslayer]

if it includes burning the flag, then, it includes dousing with water. As a method of expression of disdain and contempt for what the protesters had to say, his actions should be protected under the 1st amentdment. As we all know, the 1st Amendment protects free expression with certain "narrowly tailored exceptions". If burning the flag in protest does not amount to arson for it's act, then the similar act of dumping cold water on protesters having tangible and significant sybmolism & meaning in the American phraseology, is similarly protected expression and cannot amount to a criminal offense.

i.e. "I hate to throw cold water on your argument, but..."

[TheOtherOne]

Perhaps the water thrower should remind himself that Alaska is a CCW state. If I had been that Mr. Funk, he would have had something more serious than charges to deal with

Really? Over someone throwing water on you?

Who was that argued CCW will bring back Dodge City and "blood flowing in the streets"?

[DRC]

...under the guise of "Free Speach"?

Blocking streets and screaming at those that try to pass is intimidation is it not? So a bucket of water seems like a harmless retalietory response to me, although childish in nature (but then so are most protests) The water was his form of "Free Speach" and he does have rights as well ;)

KP95DAO,

"Perhaps the water thrower should remind himself that Alaska is a CCW state. If I had been that Mr. Funk, he would have had something more serious than charges to deal with."

I would like to see you try to defend that action in a court of law big guy.

Prosecution: "You are being accused of assault with a deadly weapon. Could you explain to the court what the victim did to prompt you to use deadly force?"

You: "Well...he had a bucket of water that he poured on me."

Prosecution: "I rest my case your honor."

:D

Darris C.

[CMichael]

My thoughts on this are first off I feel for the guy who had his son killed in the war.

Yeah, pouring water isn't nice. I think he should get a slap on the wrist.

It certainly doesn't get to the point of all the other charges levied against him.

How about the protesters that rocks at police? What would that be assaulting a police officer, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder?

It seems that the pro-appeasement protesters can give it but they can't take it.

Remember that when they threw rocks they whined how aggresive the police were.

[Mike Irwin]

Anyone notice who Webster's attorney is?

Wayne Anthony Ross?

A member, either current or past, of the NRA Board of Directors.


"...under the guise of "Free Speach"?

Blocking streets and screaming at those that try to pass is intimidation is it not?"

Doesn't appear to have been the case here, DRC. Doesn't appear that the protestors were blocking anything.

If they were screaming about the war, instead of AT passersby individually, that's likely protected speech.

[DRC]

I should have specified.

I was talking about some of the happenings with other protesters actions in other cases i.e. in SF and the volitile actions of some of the protesters and yet nothing was done regarding that (some might have been arrested but were probably only held for 24 hours and released on their own accord and not fined). In some cases the protesters get pretty aggressive and yet its allowed because it is "Free Speach" even if it involved destruction of property.

Sorry about the confusion.

DRC

[Mike Irwin]

Without question, DRC.

Washington, DC, has been home to many large scale protests over the past several years that have had many instances of protestors blocking traffic, attempting to vandalize private and public property, etc.

That's not protected speech, and should not be tolerated in the least.

Unfortunately, the police reaction in many such instances has been to just let the protestors do what they wish.

In the same sense, Mr. Webster's actions should also not be tolerated.

[spacemanspiff]

Really? Over someone throwing water on you?
from the news article:
"He threatened to beat up Mr. Funk, while pushing against Mr. Funk with his stomach and his arm, causing Mr. Funk to back away. Mr. Funk stated that he believed he was going to have to defend himself at any moment," the charging document said.
there were two seperate incidents. one where the Pro-War American doused the Anti-War dissidents with water, and another where the American got in the face of Mr Funk.
however, mr funk would probably not have been justified in using deadly force, as he could have defused the situation by leaving. he wasnt on his own property so if he felt threatened he should have retreated. at least thats my amateur humble opinion.

deadly force is justified when "threat of serious physical injury" is present. doused with water wouldnt suffice, though if i were doused with water unsuspectingly, i'd be a little upset.

[KP95DAO]

Dear Gentlemen,

I shall be kind and refer to you as such. You really ought to read the whole story before you try being unkind to me:

"A week later, according to information filed in court Monday, Webster returned and was "confrontational" verbally to two women and more physical with the one man present, Daniel Funk.

"He threatened to beat up Mr. Funk, while pushing against Mr. Funk with his stomach and his arm, causing Mr. Funk to back away. Mr. Funk stated that he believed he was going to have to defend himself at any moment," the charging document said."

I'll go ahead and accept your apologies in advance.

[DRC]

KP95DAO,

Um, may I direct you to the fact that regardless, no where is there any justification to use deadly force (you might want to but you wouldn't be justified). But if you wish to try it be my guest but here are a couple of scenarios for you think on:

Prosecution: "You are being accused of assault with a deadly weapon. Could you explain to the court what the victim did to prompt you to use deadly force?"

You: "Well...he had a bucket of water that he poured on me."

Prosecution: "I rest my case your honor."

or:

Prosecution: "You are being accused of assault with a deadly weapon. Could you explain to the court what the victim did to prompt you to use deadly force?"

You: "Well...he said he was going to beat me up."

Prosecution: "With his fists?"

You "I guess."

Prosecution: "I rest my case your honor."

or:

Prosecution: "You are being accused of assault with a deadly weapon. Could you explain to the court what the victim did to prompt you to use deadly force?"

You: "Well...he talked really mean to me and bumped into me agressively."

Prosecution: "Did he have a gun?"

You: "I don't know."

Prosecution: "I rest my case your honor."

or:

Prosecution: "You are being accused of assault with a deadly weapon. Could you explain to the court what the victim did to prompt you to use deadly force?"

You: "Well...he came at me like he was going to hurt me."

Prosecution: "Could you have walked away?"

You: "Yes."

Prosecution: "I rest my case your honor."

It's completely irrational. No matter how agravated a person gets at you or to you deadly force is a LAST RESORT not a cure all end all. If you were Mr. Funk and drew down on this guy you would be sitting in prison, sorry. If he came at you with a knife or gun that's one thing but he didn't, he got in Mr. Funks face and pushed him. You shoot somebody for that and I'll visit you through a piece of glass.

Take care and think before you act or react.

DRC

[HABU]

"He threatened to beat up Mr. Funk, while pushing against Mr. Funk with his stomach and his arm, causing Mr. Funk to back away. Mr. Funk stated that he believed he was going to have to defend himself at any moment," I can almost see this playing out:

Webster belly bumping Funk back a few feet...

Funk: Sir, I shall be forced to defend myself if you do not cease your aggressive actions.

BUMP BUMP

Funk: Sir, I shall be forced to defend myself if you do not cease your aggressive actions.

BUMP BUMP

Funk: Don't cross this line. OK, don't cross THIS line...........

[KP95DAO]

DRC,

Ok, I'll play. I do it my way and you might visit me behind glass. You do it your way and I might visit with your relatives at your wake. Isn't choice a beautiful thing?

I didn't realized that Texas had people that lived by Bostonion rules. Learn something new every day!

[Wildalaska]

The water thrower is a jerk and deserves everyhting he gets...

The bottom line..he was warned after doing it once. He chose to do it again. He should suffer the consequences.

Idiots are idiots no matter where they sit on the politcal spectrum.

WildendofdiscussionAlaska

[TheEgg]

But I finally agree on something with Wildalaska!!

Just think -- you are standing on a public street corner holding up your Pro 2nd Amendment sign in Downtown Bezerkely, CA. How would you like to be treated this way?

Is freedom of speech only for those who don't offend you?

I am offended by people and their opinions every day -- I have no right to dump water on their heads.

As has been said on this board innumerable times - where in the Constitution is the right to not be offended enumerated?

Don't rationalize bad behavior just because you agree with opinion of the offendor -- that is what gets us so mad at far left wing-nuts.

[DRC]

KP95DAO,

"DRC,

Ok, I'll play. I do it my way and you might visit me behind glass. You do it your way and I might visit with your relatives at your wake. Isn't choice a beautiful thing?

I didn't realized that Texas had people that lived by Bostonion rules. Learn something new every day!"

This man did not have a gun or a stick, he had a bucket of water when doing the dousing and was bumping the other person during the other. If a person gets mad at you and takes a swing at you with his fist and you pull your gun and shoot him, you will go before a Grand Jury and take your chances, but the likelihood of you being able to prove you had no other choice is non existant.

Your post suggests that if someone does something that upsets you then you are within in your rights to shoot them dead or that if someone touches you in a threatening manner you have the right to shoot them dead. This is incorrect thinking. You have the right to defend yourself, yes, but you do not have the right to shoot someone for yelling at you and bumping into you in a threatening manner. Bump back, stand your ground, if it comes down to a fisticuff then by all means deck the son-of-a-gun to protect yourself but pulling your gun and shooting is assinine at best. If you can walk away then walk away, if you can end the dispute with peaceful means then do so, if you do not wish to move and the dispute isn't being resolved then call the authorities and have them deal with it, press charges if you want to but shooting would be a last resort in a situation much more volitile than this one was.

Like I said if you want to try it then by all means do what you feel you must and keep us updated on how it goes.

If it were me there (and yes, I have a CHL) I would use common sense and my best judgement in determining the best course of action for the situation. Shooting wouldn't even enter my mind in this situation.

As to there being Texans living by Bostonian rules, I'm sure there are, but most of us use common sense and apply what we're taught in our classes which in turn keeps us out of the "big house" getting conjugal visits from someone no one would want one from. These things may not be taught in Oklahoma so I can understand your reasoning and can't fault you for it but I can, and did, tell you where you would end up if you handled it your way. Visiting my family at my wake? Well, I have enough knowledge and common sense to keep myself from making a fools mistake and ending up in prison because I did not think before I reacted, so the possibility of me ending up as a dirt torpedo is much less than the possibility of one landing in prison for handling things in the manner you espoused.

Take care,

DRC

PS. I don't condone the dousers actions but I do think it's funny in an ironic sort of way. Offending one by holding up a sign or offending another by throwing water at them. It's all offensive but hardly note worthy.

[KP95DAO]

DRC,

You are a hoot! I will wager that I have been in more "altercations" in the last year than you have been in your entire life. So I think I can handle myself in such circumstances. Oh yeah, they were all with convicted felons. But you know what, I was fairly certain that none of them had a gun and while a couple had very sharp objects, that's part of the job.

Up here we call what Mr. Funk had done to him assault and battery. People go to jail for these things. I don't recall ever saying that I WOULD shoot the perp; but, you are correct in that I would have drawn on him. Up here we call that self defense. And I would have placed him under arrest. I have absolutely NO tolerance for someone physically abusing me or mine. Of course you are free to do as you wish concerning you and yours.

[cordex]

TheEgg,
I was similarly surprised!

Water thrower is a nutjob.

If those protesters were a bunch of college kids blocking traffic I might have chuckled. If they were looting his business, I'd have cheered.
From what I understand, they were doing neither of these things.


edit: Looking at his business isn't a problem. Looting it is.
<marge simpson>They were looking at me. With their eyes</marge simpson>

[DRC]

KP95DAO,

"DRC,

You are a hoot! I will wager that I have been in more "altercations" in the last year than you have been in your entire life."

I'm glad I amuse you. I'll wager that you have no clue how many "altercations" I've been in and can neither prove nor disprove your statement based on that fact.

"So I think I can handle myself in such circumstances."

I never said you couldn't handle yourself, only that what you said as to how you would handle this situation were you in Mr. Funks shoes would be the wrong way to handle that situation.

"Oh yeah, they were all with convicted felons."

Do you want a cookie or an award?

"But you know what, I was fairly certain that none of them had a gun and while a couple had very sharp objects, that's part of the job."

So let me see if I've got this right. You work in criminal detention or Law Enforcement of some kind? So in your case, on the job you have a protocol that has to be followed and requirements that must be met when confronting these persons under your watch. Not to mention you are, as your career dictates, around felons on a regular basis (putting ones self in harms way to begin with because of ones line of work) Don't get me wrong, I think it is admirable that you can do this job and do it well, but your setting, circumstances and situations are completely different so a comparison of the two is like comparing apples to Acordians.

You should know that even in your position you are not above the law and drawing down on a man that has thrown water on you will land you in front of a Grand Jury or at least a hearing to determine the facts of the incident if for no other reason than reporting purposes. Being in your position you should know that first hand since you must report what happens, if my assumption is correct as to your position in Law Enforcement; if it is in another capcity then you should still know this first hand since you would end up in front of a Grand Jury were you to do this.

"Up here we call what Mr. Funk had done to him assault and battery. People go to jail for these things."

Down here we call it throwing a bucket of water and "puffing up" both are harmless, at least in the state of Texas, but it may be a different story in Oklahoma. If it is the norm in OK you folks might want to think about calming down a bit. Life's too short and there's enough Prozac to go around.

"I don't recall ever saying that I WOULD shoot the perp; but, you are correct in that I would have drawn on him. Up here we call that self defense."

You did imply such although ambiguously. Down here we would call drawing on someone for chest bumping "over reaction", but again it must be the geographic or cultural differences between your state and mine.

"And I would have placed him under arrest."

Oops! My bad. I thought you were in OK so yes, if you are in Law Enforcement in Alaska then it would be your duty to arrest this man. But drawing down on him would still be over reaction since training is given to Law Enforcement in martial arts and is to be used first to subdue the perp unless the situation calls for more drastic measures. Oh wait ,you are in Central OK so in that case if you drew down on the man you would be arrested for brandishing, you would also be out of your jurisdiction and taken before a court of law and or Grand Jury so we're right back at square one again.

"I have absolutely NO tolerance for someone physically abusing me or mine. Of course you are free to do as you wish concerning you and yours."

If your tolerance level is that low then perhaps a different line of work is in order? Down here neither incident would be considered "abuse" but then we handle things like this with a bit more tact and reserve, but you too are free to do as you wish for you and yours I just hope your intolerance doesn't land you in the same crowd you're sworn to protect the masses from.

Take care and please take no offense I'm merely telling you what you would have to contend with (which you should already know) They teach those here in Law Enforcement what the consequences of their actions can be and what protocol they have to follow when incidents occur. What do they do up there?

DRC

[atek3]

Actions have consequences. The protesters should accept the consequences of harrasing the father of a marine combatant with their protest signs. If they were really interested in "peace", they should have peacefully removed themselves to another place in town that was less confrontational to the father of the marine. And again, if they are peacefull folks, they should refuse to press charges as well.

Are you stoned?
They were standing on PUBLIC STREET CORNER. Harming NO ONE. They were standing on a street corner in which they would be noticed, NOT confrontational, noticed. Christ the woman was a quaker, not exactly the most confrontational bunch around. I'm sorry mr. jerk was offended by the protestors. Maybe he should move to England, where you have a right not to be offended. But here in "America" we don't have such a "right". However you do have a right, not to have some ignoramus splash ice water on you IN ALASKA. I wouldn't worry about hypothermia, as I the the heat given off by my BLOOD BOILING would keep me warm enough.

[grampster]

Atek3,
No, not stoned. Far from it. Just applying the same twisted logic some of the liberal left uses when folks don't agree with their twisted logic. (or in most cases, no logic whatsoever.)

The so-called protesters discovered the first time they got splashed a little something about the natural order of things pertaining to action/reaction. Mr. Jerk (as you call him) just had a son killed, or have you conveniently forgotten about that little fact! Your understanding of what is confrontational needs a little re-evalution as well. The trouble with most illogical people is that they believe they live in Bambi world where they think "Can't we all just get along?" I suggest anyone who believes that needs to go back and repeat high school history again, because they must have been asleep. Peace has never come from pacifism, only strength. The father's reaction may not be proper, but certainly is understandable under the circumstances and I think the "peaceful protesters" sowed the seeds of the treatment they received, legal, proper or otherwise. Actions have consequences! Always!

As "peaceful" people they should have appreciated the father's pain with respect to their actions near his home and route. That is being considerate and perhaps an indication of their "peaceful" motives. But no, they decided that their "rights" were more important than the sorrow the father had. They are hypocrytical in their message in that they chose to promote violence by not being considerate of the father's pain. We are, after all, all Americans regardless of our opinions and as such we should have some respect for each other. Perhaps if they had moved and not further annoyed a man that they found to be angered with them, perhaps the father may have, just a little bit, respected their position a bit. Maybe not. But, they could have perhaps defused the situation had they had moved to another portion of the town to put our their message. Pehaps not. But their bullheadedness reinforces the nitwit label most folks of their ilk are branded with. They promote peace but cause violence. Some irony in that, methinks.

grampster

[cordex]

The father's reaction may not be proper, but certainly is understandable under the circumstances and I think the "peaceful protesters" sowed the seeds of the treatment they received, legal, proper or otherwise. Actions have consequences! Always!
So in your mind it would be "understandable under the circumstances" for someone who lost a relative to violence committed with a firearm to assault a pro-gun protester?
they decided that their "rights" were more important than the sorrow the father had.
Didn't Michael Moore have something like this in BfC? A bit about how the NRA didn't respect the sorrow of the parents of the Columbine massacre and were just too concerned with their "rights"?
We are, after all, all Americans regardless of our opinions and as such we should have some respect for each other.
Like respecting the right of people to have and express opinions we disagree with ... maybe even views we find offensive?
They promote peace but cause violence. Some irony in that, methinks.
They promoted "peace" and this offended some fellow without enough self-control to avoid being violent. They weren't responsible for the water-tosser's actions. He is responsible for his actions.
Just applying the same twisted logic some of the liberal left uses when folks don't agree with their twisted logic. (or in most cases, no logic whatsoever.)
I refuse to accept their "logic" coming from them, and I'm not enough of a hypocrite to accept it coming from my own side.

[Azrael256]

Ok, I'll agree, tossing a bucket of water on the protesters was out of line. Now, be honest here, how many of us are secretly proud of this guy?

[cordex]

As I said before:
If those protesters were a bunch of college kids blocking traffic I might have chuckled. If they were looting his business, I'd have cheered.
From what I understand, they were doing neither of these things.

[PATH]

Physically touching Mr. Funk in order to start a fight was out of line. People in America have the right to peacefully demonstrate. The Constitution guarantees that along with our right to bear arms.

The water throwing was an harassment charge and probably would have carried a fine period. Personally I would have used a bucket of excrement. In for a dime, in for a dollar. I would know it was illegal but I'd be prepared to take my lumps. I would not physicaly hurt anyone.

my .02 cents.

[Wildalaska]

But I finally agree on something with Wildalaska!!

Congrads! Your finally right too!:neener: :neener:

WildyaknewthatwascomingdidntyaAlaska

[DRC]

I won't speak for anyone but myself here. I being of sound mind and body do not condone the actions of the water thrower; however I see it as a harmless action (although cold) He did not throw the bucket, only the water and I've not seen a single person melt from such an action. Was it childish? Yes it was. Was it an annoyance? Yes it was. Was it uncalled for? IMO Yes, but it would depend on who you asked as to the answer you'd get for this question. The thrower was wrong to douse these folks with water. Agreed? OK.

With all that said my personal feelings are that the water did not harm anyone and is in itself freedom of expression or ones dislike for anothers actions (So that there's no confusion; I don't condone the action but I will not condem it either BUT I would not have done it. I might have given it some thought though ;) What I would have done was exactly what these folks were doing. I would have made some signs that said something like "We're mentally inept." or "Ignorance is bliss and we're the most blissful people you will ever meet." then gone out and stood WITH them holding my sign proudly for all passers by to see (while wearing a ski mask of course), but that's just me :)

Take care and look on the bright side, stupid people are still stupid but no one got hurt.

DRC

[jmbg29]

More often than not I agree with you Grampster, but I have no idea how you came up with this:Mr. Jerk (as you call him) just had a son killed, or have you conveniently forgotten about that little fact!Out of this:His son, Shawn, a 22-year-old Soldotna High graduate, is now fighting with the Marines.

Unless Mr. Webster owns the patch of ground the protester idiots were on, he had no business whatsoever doing any of the childish things that he did.

He is a disgrace, and he does his son no honor.

[grampster]

jmbg29,

(Grampster, tail between legs as he slinks up the alley) Long day, Long thread, didn't go back and review, was on THR as I was trying to relax and take a time out to avoid a nasty day at work where things were going wrong. Thought I remembered the guy lost his son, didn't check. Plus was accused of being stoned and was angry that I wasn't.

Still, find some irony in the fact that it's OK for people to protest things that tend to inflame the passions of others and yet are unwilling to take on some of the responsibilities for their actions. The father should have plead guilty, paid his fine, taken his 15 minutes of fame and the protesters should have acknowledged they are for peace and dropped the charges. They both win at that point.
There is a fine line between opposing something and being effective in that opposition by using intellect and reasonable argument and being bullheaded and confrontational (confrontation can and does occur passively) especially when one discovers those who they are trying to convert have stepped over the line and are no longer willing to be convinced of anything. What does it benefit anyone for continuing in the same fashion? If you represent peace, then you need to do everything you can to be peaceable. The hypocracy is that your actions promote the very violence you protest if you don't change your tactics in some way.

One bucket of water, OK. The guy is now pushing the envelope with physical contact. (suspect he is being egged on by others)
I think he has stepped over the line with and after the 2nd bucket etc.

I'm finished with this thread. Made enough of a fool of myself, but I still say that when there is action, there is reaction. The reaction may not always be what you thought.

grampster :uhoh: