So since charges have not been laid against the police, as a matter of fact I have not even seen a photo of the alleged broken in door, we can assume that what the police did was completely legal as well.
You SURE you want to use those standards?
Let me see if I can follow the twisted reasoning here: there were crimes committed at one or several OWS protests. Hence, if follows that they are not “peaceably” gathering to petition for a new dress. Because somebody came to where they were and committed a crime.
So then it follows that the police have a right to invasive investigations to prevent crimes, and therefore have a right to harass and intimidate people who might hold an illegal gathering? Assuming that person or persons unknown might go to that same location on that same day, and commit a crime, which would make the gathering illegal?
Is that it? Its kinda hard to tell, you’re being so arch and cutesy-poo. Perhaps you could clarify. Was “peacably” not the word? Was it “and”? Or “the”?
I thought the point was of sufficient substance that I felt compelled to make it. That’s apparently not enough?.
Regarding the OWS crime discussion, I am not sure where to go with that if you don’t think the crimes that have been documented - rapes, attempted rapes, murder - just within Occupiers themselves - are too few or insignificant to take seriously. I’ve always felt that one rape was one too many.
But it’s not. The ACLU doesn’t get to decide what a violation of the Fourth Amendment is.
Let’s consider 1970, and a judge authorizing a tap and trace. The warrant he uses didn’t have to explicitly lay out the location of each phone extension that used that number. Even if the phone extension ran to the pool house, the garage, or places separate from the house in question, it was always sufficient to swear that the number was associated with and relevant to a criminal investigation.
Wsa that also a violation of the Fourth Amendment? The “particularly describing” element was always met by describing the phone number, not the physical locations of the telephonic devices associated with the warrant.
So what has changed? Phones now reach longer. You didn’t have any additional rights in 1970 – you just didn’t have a mobile phone in 1970.
Now this one item never ceases to puzzle, and amuse, me.
I’ll grant you that the rapes are pretty bad, although portraying a handful of cases as a reason to vilify the entire movement (and the ideology behind the movement) is either retarded or evil.
But never mind that, I’m much more interested in the shitting on a police car bit. Now this is a picture that is pretty much the poster child of reactionary thought against the whole of the Occupy movement. It crops up, in either pixels or words, anytime someone tries to argue against them longhaired hippies. And I have to ask: what the fuck, man ? What is wrong with that picture, really ? How is taking a dump on a police car left suspiciously without supervision* any different than, say, wearing a shirt saying “Fuck da police” ? How is it in any way, shape or form relevant to anything ?
You’re the loquacious and eloquent arch-reactionary on the boards, you spell that shit (heh) out for me please.
- If you’re wondering why suspicious, google “agent provocateur”, please. Canadian cops have already been caught red handed setting fire to their own cars in a bid to discredit the Occupy movement.
You didn’t… but I assumed you were. Since you now appear to be suggesting you weren’t, I’ll ask: where did you get the idea that people have the right to assemble freely? I thought you were quoting or referring ot the Constitution, which guarantees the right to PEACEABLY assemble. If you believe there’s some unfettered right to assemble and not be peaceable, I’d like to know why you think so.
I have no idea where you learned this lesson.
As applied to a particular individual’s conduct, it’s absolutely appropriate.
As applied to a generic fact pattern, it’s useless. Otherwise, one could never describe any conduct that was illegal, since no hypothetical would involve a real charge, trial, conviction, and appeal.
So if you wish to say that little Timmy Johnson, who was accused of this conduct, is innocent, I’m right there with you. But if you wish to generalize from that to the concept that we can never describe an illegal pattern of conduct with hypothetical characters, I’m not.
The shirt doesn’t spread e coli.
Of course that’s true. That truth has no connection to your premise, so its truthiness is of no consequence. The Republians held a convention in downtown St. Paul, the subconscious of the Twin Cities. So, then, it follows that any rape and/or murder that occurred in downtown St. Paul in that time frame is the responsibility of the Republican Party?*
Prove it. Names, dates, places.
- Had a party in a local bar, hired a local rock band named Hookers and Blow. I swear, I am not making this up.
No way! No shit? Cite request NSII (No Snark Intended or Implied)
No but you asked for two or more examples of our rights being diminished and I gave you four. If you do not like this one you still have three.
The Patriot Act diminished protections we previously enjoyed. Constitutional or not your rights are diminished from what they were ten years ago.
Is there something in the law akin to prior restraint when it comes to this?
Can the government stop me from assembly with others because they think I might not be peaceable when I do it?
Ha ha !
Yeah, but no, seriously ?
See, here’s the thing. Only a constitutional amendment or a SCOTUS ruling can change the rights you have. TPA isn’t either one of those things.
Just one? Well, here’s the OWS spokesperson discussing the rape of a young deaf boy.
http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/11/01/woman-describes-rape-occupy-wall-street
Here’s the Cleveland rape:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20122659-504083.html
And here’s the murder in Oakland
[URL=“Murder at Oakland OWS movement”]
I’ve already agreed that what the police did was completely legal. If you read back, I also noted that when the Stasi jailed someone for telling a joke about the government, that was legal too.
That does not mean that I think in either case, what they did is right.
Oh My God! It’s germ warfare people! I think that the protesters could be charged with possession of WMD in their lower colons!
When e coli is outlawed, only assholes will have e coli. Which is totally unfair in how that favors Republicans.
First off, OWS doesn’t have “spokespersons”, or, perhaps more correctly, everybody is because nobody is. But Fox Gnaws doesn’t know that, so I guess neither do you.
But… but how can they be a movement if they don’t have a specific figurehead and PR department ? Who’s funding the bus rides to the demonstrations ?!