Land of the free? Police smash family out of van

[lamazza]

So, really the optimal solution is to trash their property and throw them in the street

 

[Nicky Santoro]

Shield529
Senior Member



Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 143 To Nicky S. who stated "It's my contention that some of them are just to eager to do it with "vigor".
Not a problem though. The day is coming soon that that crowd will get "called to account" with vigor".

and all the other critics;
Stop being Clinton's and arguing how bad, wrong, and illegal it all was and not giving a single solution.
Tell us all this, you are an officer given a lawful warrant, you go to this wanted persons residence to serve this warrant and the situation turns as this one did, then what would you have done. What procedures should the police have used when going to serve this warrant.


If you don't see what your "brother officers" did was wrong you are beyond redemption. No explanation will suffice for the likes of you. BTW, is Ernst Rohm your personal hero?

 

[White Horseradish]

As far as the city changing the laws,well,that was their last recourse.

And actually hearing them out and maybe taking action on their complint was never an option?

You have a right to free speech. But you have no right to be heard. If what you contend is true then the Free speech zones that have been set up around all presidential appearances and the conventions of the political parties would have been struck down as unconstituional long ago. Yet despite many court challenges they have been found to pass constitutional muster.

So if the council passed an ordinance that stated they had to take their protest elsewhere or be arrested it's perfectly legal.

And had we been speaking of private individuals, I'd agree with you. However, I had this oddball idea that a public servant actually has an obligation to hear out a member of the public.

Thank you for setting me straight. Now I know it's perfectly fine for the government to arrest people that say things it doesn't like. My mistake, I thought this was USA, but I must have never actually left USSR...

Don't know about free speech zones, so I'm not going to comment.

BS.

If your logic worked in court, then the bulletproof defense for every criminal act would be for the criminal to make some political statement while doing it, and claiming that he just robbed the store, shot the mayor, or raped all those babies, because he needed to call attention to his "cause." If I wanted to steal a car, I'd just make sure to wear an "I hate George Bush and this illegal war in Iraq!" t-shirt, and maybe put a few bumper stickers on the car.

Charles Manson tried to claim that he orchestrated all those murders as a "protest". Did you know that? Didn't work, of course.

Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to park your van wherever you want, any more than it guarantees the right to steal a car or shoot the mayor.

When these guys parked there it was not against the law to do so. Your comparisons with unlawful acts are therefore irrelevant.

If these guys were doing somehting wrong, why weren't they cited/arrested earlier? Why did they have to make a special law just for them? I see no mention of any charges of obstructing traffic. Who and how did they hurt by their presence? The fragile sensibilities of the government officials? Sorry. That's not good enough.

 

[Art Eatman]

This thread went beyond redemption on Page 1. Almost sorry I went out and actually got a little work done, today...

Art