• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police beat war veterans in assault on Occupy Boston

justabubba said:
i do hear you
protecting that fresh sod trumps our right of assembly
View attachment 67116661
Click to expand...

They were not being denied their right to assemble, Bubba. Are you intentionally misinterpreting the article to fight a non-existent fight, or are you just being argumentative for the hell of it?
 
Let's look at the whole of what happened yesterday.... These scumballs screwed up traffic in downtown Boston all day, marching to and fro. They had to be barred from marching over a bridge that would have been unsafe for them to do so by Boston PD, and some elements of the crowd attempted to forment a movement to storm the Police Line and attempt to cross the bridge anyway. These people have been ILLEGALLY assembled on the Greenway in Boston for almost two weeks with no permits. The City is providing them with trash collection, electricity, and (I believe) sanitary facilities at the TAXPAYER'S expense. These morons last night overflowed out of Drury Square (the main hub of nutjob activity in the city for the last two weeks) and onto the Greenway. They were told they couldn't set up camp there. They tried to anyway. They got a much less violent and aggressive response from the Boston PD than I would have prefered.
 
tessaesque said:
They were not being denied their right to assemble, Bubba. Are you intentionally misinterpreting the article to fight a non-existent fight, or are you just being argumentative for the hell of it?
Click to expand...

there you go, defending the protection of that fresh sod

and willing to sacrifice your Constitutional right of assembly as the price of it


too many people gave their lives giving us our liberties for some folks to piss them away

but keep on worrying about that fresh sod the police were protecting ... while abusing veterans
 
megaprogman said:
People do not have a right to not be inconvienced, so long as they are not harmed, so that invalidates most of your argument, especially if the demonstration is in a public space such as a park or a street. Also, there is no evidence to show that anyone has been harmed or had their safety compromised by this demonstration.
Click to expand...

I hope they bring this thing to Worcester. I'll drive down there just to show them that their bodies are no match for a modern motor vehicle when they choose to block the streets. Hell, I might go out and rent a hummer just for the occasion.
 
justabubba said:
there you go, defending the protection of that fresh sod

and willing to sacrifice your Constitutional right of assembly as the price of it


too many people gave their lives giving us our liberties for some folks to piss them away

but keep on worrying about that fresh sod the police were protecting ... while abusing veterans
Click to expand...

Cut the dramatics, Dorothy.

Police had earlier warned the about 1,000 protesters to leave the Greenway area, where they had settled hours before, and relocate to Dewey Square or a small, adjacent strip of the Greenway.

Officials do not want the protesters, who originally settled in Dewey Square, to occupy the space across Congress Street on the Greenway because it recently underwent a renovation project where expensive improvements were added, according to Elaine Driscoll, police spokeswoman.
Click to expand...

Which means that:
bostonprotesters.JPG

Though when I made the graphic I labeled it incorrectly. It should be switched, I believe.
 
Last edited:
tess, you got it right. They wanted people to leave the Greenway and move to Dewey Square. The problem is that Dewey Square is already pretty much full to its capacity of worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen, so there was no room for them there. That's why they'd gone across Congress St in the first place.
 
Lokiate said:
Those cops are lucky they didn't try it on OIF/OEF vets, but I suspect that these badge wearing henchmen are cowards, since they beat up old men.

The main question to be asked here, however, is what the **** happened to this:



Or does the United States Constitution apply to everyone except Boston police? Don't know about anyone else, but I would call that domestic terrorism.
Click to expand...

you have the right to peaceably assemble, you don't have the right to trespass or destroy public property in order to do so.

I just love it when some jackass whines and cries about the cops beating some lawbreaker's ass. news flash: if you don't want the cops to beat your ass...obey the law.
 
Tigger said:
tess, you got it right. They wanted people to leave the Greenway and move to Dewey Square. The problem is that Dewey Square is already pretty much full to its capacity of worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen, so there was no room for them there. That's why they'd gone across Congress St in the first place.
Click to expand...

The article made it a little confusing. For reference (it's what I quoted earlier), here it is:

Boston police warn protesters to leave Greenway tonight, or be moved out - Metro Desk - Local news updates from The Boston Globe
 
OscarB63 said:
you have the right to peaceably assemble, you don't have the right to trespass or destroy public property in order to do so.

I just love it when some jackass whines and cries about the cops beating some lawbreaker's ass. news flash: if you don't want the cops to beat your ass...obey the law.
Click to expand...

Kind of reminds me of something like this:
 
Tigger said:
I hope they bring this thing to Worcester. I'll drive down there just to show them that their bodies are no match for a modern motor vehicle when they choose to block the streets. Hell, I might go out and rent a hummer just for the occasion.
Click to expand...

I was just in Worcester last week. I have to tell you, that's some crazy streets they's gots there. Holly cow. I got lost using a GPS. I swear they had a city board meeting to name one street and each person had a name they loved and so they named each block of that street.

I went on Google and found it. It goes like this: Goddard Ave. turns into James St. turns into Ludlow St. turns into Pinehurst Ave. turns into Oxford St. N. turns into Southbridge St. turns into Southbridge Rd. turns into Worcester Rd.
 
ksu_aviator said:
I was just in Worcester last week. I have to tell you, that's some crazy streets they's gots there. Holly cow. I got lost using a GPS. I swear they had a city board meeting to name one street and each person had a name they loved and so they named each block of that street.

I went on Google and found it. It goes like this: Goddard Ave. turns into James St. turns into Ludlow St. turns into Pinehurst Ave. turns into Oxford St. N. turns into Southbridge St. turns into Southbridge Rd. turns into Worcester Rd.
Click to expand...

Welcome to New England. Only here does North Brookfield road in Brookfield, MA become Brookfield Road in North Brookfield, MA. Oh, and they're both parts of State Route 67. Did you get to go through Kelly Square? You'd remember it.... Seven roads converge into a single intersection and there's only one traffic signal (a stop sign) anywhere in the intersection.
 
tessaesque said:
Cut the dramatics, Dorothy.



Which means that:
View attachment 67116662



Though when I made the graphic I labeled it incorrectly. It should be switched, I believe.
Click to expand...

so now you subscribe to the right of assembly so long as it is not on fresh sod

next they will say not on concrete

or asphalt

or in a building

or outside


and those like you will obsequiously obey authority because it is easier than standing up for your rights


stand for something or fall for anything
 
justabubba said:
so now you subscribe to the right of assembly so long as it is not on fresh sod

next they will say not on concrete

or asphalt

or in a building

or outside


and those like you will obsequiously obey authority because it is easier than standing up for your rights


stand for something or fall for anything
Click to expand...

Did you read the article I later linked? There was a law on the books regarding assembly in the area they've asked protesters to vacate. The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES has already stated that reasonable limitations on the right to assembly are perfectly acceptable. Asking the protesters to obey existing laws and move across the street in no way violates or limits their rights under the constitution. You can fight for any cause you want to fight for, but when your cause is a made-up exaggeration of a nothing situation it's kind of like pissing into the wind.
 
tessaesque said:
Did you read the article I later linked? There was a law on the books regarding assembly in the area they've asked protesters to vacate. The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES has already stated that reasonable limitations on the right to assembly are perfectly acceptable. Asking the protesters to obey existing laws and move across the street in no way violates or limits their rights under the constitution. You can fight for any cause you want to fight for, but when your cause is a made-up exaggeration of a nothing situation it's kind of like pissing into the wind.
Click to expand...


you glossed over the 'obsequiously obey authority' part of my post, didn't you
 
justabubba said:
so now you subscribe to the right of assembly so long as it is not on fresh sod

next they will say not on concrete

or asphalt

or in a building

or outside


and those like you will obsequiously obey authority because it is easier than standing up for your rights


stand for something or fall for anything
Click to expand...


funny, the govt has always placed limitations on our rights. you have the right to vote...but you must be 18. you have the right to smoke...but you must be 19. you have the right to drive...but you must pass a test.

just because you have the right to do something, it doesn't give you the right break other laws and ordinances to do it.

guaranteed, the ones crying about the cops beating these people would be the first to call the cops if these people tried to assemble on their front lawn.
 
justabubba said:
you glossed over the 'obsequiously obey authority' part of my post, didn't you
Click to expand...

I'm not her, but when I read it, rather than gloss over it, I simply rearranged the word order to read "obey authority obsequiously".

I hope that helps.
 
OscarB63 said:
funny, the govt has always placed limitations on our rights. you have the right to vote...but you must be 18. you have the right to smoke...but you must be 19. you have the right to drive...but you must pass a test.

just because you have the right to do something, it doesn't give you the right break other laws and ordinances to do it.

guaranteed, the ones crying about the cops beating these people would be the first to call the cops if these people tried to assemble on their front lawn.
Click to expand...

yes, let's conflate assembly on a private yard with a public square
that will make acquiescence to give up our right to assembly seem more palatable
 
justabubba said:
you glossed over the 'obsequiously obey authority' part of my post, didn't you
Click to expand...

Laws are laws for reasons, bubba. If I'm trying to make a political point I'm not going to be the jackass intentionally breaking laws to make a point. I have no respect for people who disrespect authority for the sake of disrespecting authority. Read the article I posted. Stop standing on that dilapidated soap box and learn a little bit about the situation before you start screaming about rights violations and bowing to authority and all the other nonsense you keep spewing about this.

The fact is, the protesters were asked to obey the law and given quite some time in which to do it. Many did obey, but those who did not were arrested. Those who resisted arrest (one cop was hit in the face by a protester, for example) were met with equal or due force.

So what exactly are you trying to say here? That sometimes you should just go ahead and disregard the law to make a point? What are the limitations on that? When does direct violation of the law require or justify legal action against the violator? It's okay so long as the law-breaker is exercising one of their consitutional rights simultaneously? In that case can I strip naked and piss on your kid's playground during recess so long as I'm carrying a "end all oil subsidies" sign at the same time? I mean, what's a little indecent exposure in the exercise of my free speech rights, right?
 
justabubba said:
yes, let's conflate assembly on a private yard with a public square
that will make acquiescence to give up our right to assembly seem more palatable
Click to expand...

once again...no one was asked to give up their right to assemble. but I guess you guys are perfectly fine with allowing people to waste taxpayer money by destroying public property.
 
justabubba said:
yes, let's conflate assembly on a private yard with a public square
that will make acquiescence to give up our right to assembly seem more palatable
Click to expand...

For the last time, bubba..Their rights were not restricted, inhibited, or removed. By moving to the designated spot they were not abandoning their rights in anyway. This notion is completely fabricated and the argument is disingenous.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Read more here: Police beat war veterans in assault on Occupy Boston — RT

So, the cops are now beating up war veterans. This is really disgusting and just goes to show the heartlessness of the cops that did this horrendous act.
Click to expand...


so why is it relevant to mention the law breaker was a war veteran?........just because you were deployed to another part of the world to do what you volunteered to do doesnt make you some kind of God, i'll admit that a certain amount of respect should given for it but i was raised in a military family and served myself....believe me, i knew people who were a-holes when then came in and they still were when they got out.....being a war vet doesnt give somebody above the law status
 
Lokiate said:
Those cops are lucky they didn't try it on OIF/OEF vets, but I suspect that these badge wearing henchmen are cowards, since they beat up old men.

The main question to be asked here, however, is what the **** happened to this:



Or does the United States Constitution apply to everyone except Boston police? Don't know about anyone else, but I would call that domestic terrorism.
Click to expand...

Why not use the governments monster against the government peons? Some of these cops are straight up accepting money from governments to dispense silence and terror in an attempt to quash voices.
 
tessaesque said:
Supreme Court says you can place reasonable limitations on the time, place, and manner of assembly. Seems that asking protesters to move from an area to which they are causing damage would fit under "reasonable":
Click to expand...
Looks like a law was made that stops a persons right to peacably assemble.

Thats like saying you have the right to drink water. But, only 1 cup a day.

Or you have a right to stay up as long as you want but, im giving you a sedative at 10.

Or you can take a dump.... But im going to install this colostomy bag.
 
I've supported the OWS thing. They need to be careful though, people are not going to support them if they start getting into fights with the police and not respecting the property of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom