Books. Bikes. Boomsticks.
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." -A.E. van Vogt
I'll play devil's advocate. (Does that mean that I'm about to get slammed? Probably.)1. Was this a public place or a private rally. I recall the "Don't Taze Me Bro" dude was at a public rally,asked to leave, and got quickly tazed when he didn't, and the manhandling was upheld. 2. How drunk was he? We're not there. One of the charges was "Public Drunkeness." Here in Texas, the standard is intoxication to the extent that one represents a danger to himself and/or others. This would be staggering drunk, or might be crossing traffic while just tipsy. In this case, he was entering a mob of persons of questionable intelligence, proclaiming opposition. Sounds dangerous enough, to me. (for him.)3. Whether you had the right to be there or not, once the disturbance is caused, the cops have a duty to disperse it before someone gets hurt. The easy way to do that is to remove the focus of the crowd's anger, which was the anti-Obama dude. Sure, he was legal (disregarding the intoxication issue). But it's easier to separate the two parties than to stand in a phalanx around the guy until someone throws something or takes a poke at him or a officer, which absolutely would necessitate a duty to act. So the cop says, "Move along, sir. It's time to go." When he argues the point, and doesn't leave (which would have dissipated the growing riot), he sets himself up for a Disorderly Conduct charge. Here, that's a piddlin' Class C, which is on par with a speeding ticket. Same with the Public Intoxication charge. Another charge in Texas might have been "Fail To Comply With Lawful Order." _ __ _ Keep in mind that I'm just throwing these concepts out there as possibilities, rather than accepting what a we're being spoonfed. Basically, this is a blog entry referencing a rather subjective news story referencing a highly subjective video with a voice-over.
Oh, come on Matt! The other guys got to be shrill, hyperbolic, and hysterical for eight damn years, and the first time I try and do it...;)
I understand why he was taken away by the cops, he was not taken away because of his message, he was taken away for his safety. With that being said, this is a demonstration of the Democrat's position of tolerance and understanding.As far as Matt's example of the "Don't taze me" guy, he did not have the right to disrupt the event (held in a college venue) any more than he would have had the right to stand up in the middle of an Algebra class and begin speaking about a political candidate. Sure, you have a right to say what you want, but I am not required to listen, provide listeners for you, nor am I required to guarantee you a venue in which to speak.
I'm with Matt, this character got what he was looking for. And as usual, we're only seeing the part he wants us to see.
Here's a link to the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94N1TkuLWssI think he was about to get killed, and the police saved his life.Should they have? Dunno. Cops have a stated interest in preserving the peace and preventing assaults on citizens. On the other hand, shielding people from the absolutely predictable effects of their own foolishness just fills the world with fools...
And will Obama have anything to say about it?The CAPTCHA bot has this to say about it: SPITCH
"I think he was about to get killed"But, I thought the LightBringer was supposed to usher in a new era of politics, characterized by diversity tolerance and universal love? Surely His followers wouldn't attack someone simply over a t-shirt?
Matt: Can a police officer tell you to leave any public area for any reason? That is, is it a "lawful order" to require someone to vacate a public area?If I'm standing there, and some guy decides he doesn't like me, what onus does that place on me to leave as the focus of his anger? (Leaving aside the issue of it being foolhardy of me to stand around a crowd of mental degenerates who are howling for my blood.)
"Can a police officer tell you to leave any public area for any reason? That is, is it a "lawful order" to require someone to vacate a public area?"(NB- yes, he "can"- he has a gun and powerful friends. May he lawfully ask, and must "anyone" comply to remain within the law are the questions."No, not for "any reason", but for public safety, yes. I often look at these cases through the other end of the telescope- what if the officers had done nothing?"Sergeant, Smith and Brown here at the corner of Main and Second. There's a man here in a McCain shirt, the crowd is getting mad at him. He's saying he has a free speech right, but they are getting mad and surrounding him. I think he's about to get beaten up, or worse. Should I tell him to leave?""He's right, we can't do anything to interfere with his speech, or theirs. Wait and see if they actually assault him, then arrest the ones who do it.""But Sarge, there are just three of us and a thousand people in this mob. Once it turns violent, they'll swamp all of us. The only way to stop it is to grab the one guy and get him away.""No, Free Speech trumps all. Remember, you have real good injury and death benefits! Good luck."
Haw. Staghounds put it neatly. :)First let me say how very impressed I am that people got the point that I was making, and didn't automatically give a knee-jerk response that I was a JBT, sticking up for the Man. Seriously, it says a lot about the readers here that folks actually read and thought before responding.PerlHaqr said: "Can a police officer tell you to leave any public area for any reason? That is, is it a "lawful order" to require someone to vacate a public area?" No, that would be circular logic. But the fact thta it would disperse an imminent riot allows it to pass the reasonableness standard. Beyond that, we'd have to know if that was private venue, and how drunk he was. :)
Post a Comment