The POLICE, as emergency responders had the responsibility to tend to the injured man, not the protesters. After the crowd charged the police and threw things at them how were they to know what the crowd was up to?
It's been covered already. If a park is closed it's closed, camping is already illegal in most city parks, "public property" is fine, until you are in the way ala in the streets, blocking others' way, etc. And it is NOT acceptable to attack police for doing their jobs lawfully.
At the risk of being argumentative I believe both sides have equal claim that courts have leaned politically one way or another, in essence it is based off the political lean of the individual judge most of which have either been duly elected by the population or confirmed via state or federal legislative bodies. As far as to the "Constitutionality" of any particular decision, unless I am mistaken that is their most fundamental duty interpretation of the law or the constitutionality thereof. Leave it in the hands of individual opinion in society and virtually no decision could every be made due to conflicting viewpoints.
Once again, at the risk of being argumentative, how is we are just gonna sit here until our issues are addressed somehow violent? It appears as if violence only erupted after there was police involvement, I'm sure our opinions of which parties are more responsible for said violence would be vastly different.
Agreed, The city does in fact have the right to enforce its laws and ordinances.... just not at the detriment of the People's Constitutionally Protected Rights, or would you disagree? If you disagree, then why do we even have Rights in the first place. Court systems have long ruled upon reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions regarding these issues, while on an individual basis people might disagree with any particular ruling (whether on the side of upholding 1st Amendment protects or on the side of restricting them) I ask you, if not the courts then WHO should we allow to make these decisions?
1. No it's not, I'm pretty sure they covered their bases in advance and followed the plan set forth before the incident. They file reports after their shift so that is not exactly correct. 2. They clearly crossed the line, that is justification to initiate ass kicking mode, you cannot blame the police for doing their jobs especially after they issued commands prior to being assaulted. The rioters were compelled to follow the commands and if they felt they were unjustly moved along they SHOULD have filed a complaint, not engaged the police.
Who gets to decide what is Moral or Immoral, Right or Wrong?
Well, yes in my opinion it is open ended for all sides to raise issues which is why many decisions end up back in the courts at later dates, it's to correct or affirm prior decisions. For instance I am a constructionist to a large degree but I do agree with many decisions if they are based on the logic of necessary and proper. For instance if you are to reign in a Bill of Rights amendment there needs to be compelling public interest and it must be of immediate and provable need such as limiting free speech protections to exclude fraud, slander, incitement to riot, etc. etc.
I am not opposed to the current or other protests per se. What I am opposed to are the flagrant violations of what seem to be a minor constituency amonst the protesters, there are some really nasty underground elements trying to foment some bad ideas mixed in and I really want people to acknowledge that. My position is pretty simple, and my opinion is not one that is in agreement to this movement.
I want all rights upheld in this and it's a good exercise in where rights begin and end. The courts are making decisions and they must be adhered to, however there is a right to respectfully disagree with the court so long as the law is followed. Time/Place/Manner is quite the issue here, good catch on your part and it is what I have been discussing in a roundabout way, those protesting respectfully and lawfully are perfectly within their rights as far as I am concerned though I do not feel they have a great message, where it comes to a head is in the details of those that are taking things too far from a legal perspective.
yet they did not
Yous should really go back and watch the video.... "charged the police and threw things at them"? Really.... how does kneeling around an injured man constitute "charged the police and threw things at them"?
I dunno, from what I've seen the video was in question because of some pan aways and things like that. I don't know what the police were necessarily holding for as they may not have wanted to go in to a hostile situation and recieve injuries, they may have picked up a bad cue from the crowd. I am simply stating that if the protesters took it upon themselves to aid the man it could have been interpreted badly by the officers, while they are trained public servants they are still human and thus prone to mistakes. My point is that there is an alternative to the demonization they recieved and they do have a side to the story as well.
Well, I can definitely say without reservation that our two definitions of "Universal Standard of Morality" would differ greatly.
How can a standard of morality be both "Universal" and differentiate amongst different individuals?
Agreed this is a conversation for a different thread / forum
It really doesn't sway me but I will explain why. First and foremost I graduated in Broadcasting which required quite a bit of communications theory, communications legal, journalism, and finally video/audio principles. We were a lucky curriculum in that we had "old school" instructors who were liberal but believed in teaching the true art of informing the public and not the modern philosophy of shaping coverage. That's a lot of background that I may have been wordy on but it sets this up, we were also taught "dirty tricks" in order for us to realize that there is alot of things that "don't happen" because they aren't on video or were shot from unflattering angles, etc. and thus I sledom trust video as in I feel that it has a tendancy to appeal to our "eye witness" primal instincts i.e. "if I didn't see it it didn't happen".