• 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!

Naomi Wolf explains our constitutional right to peaceful assembly

Catawba said:
Did you just equate a peaceful protester standing on a sidewalk to potential robber seen with a gun???
Click to expand...

No, she just equated the situation of a police officer question a protestor with the situation of a police officer question a robber with a gun. Big difference.
 
Nick2253 said:
No, she just equated the situation of a police officer question a protestor with the situation of a police officer question a robber with a gun. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there is no comparison.
 
Catawba said:
Exactly, there is no comparison.
Click to expand...

No, you're still not getting it.

I can compare a handshake I get from Mother Theresa to the handshake I get from Adolf Hitler, but I'm not saying that Mother Theresa is the same as Adolf Hitler.
 
Catawba said:
Did you just equate a peaceful protester standing on a sidewalk to potential robber seen with a gun???
Click to expand...

I was actually thinking of the situation in which an individual had a license to open-carry - and an officer confronted him in a store thinking he was trying to rob the place. . .

Same thing in both situations: the individual was questioned and the individual believe they knew their rights but - ultimately - the officer's interpretation of the situation matters more and when there's such a conflict it's up to a magistrate (etc) to make the decision whether charges will be filed or not.

For Wolfe it would have been that she *had* a permit to protest - or the protest was permitted properly.

It's not up to the individual to make the decision when confronted by the officers. It shouldn't matter whether we're talking about protesting or sleeping in the street.

And per Wolf's situation - I can't tell if they obtained a permit at all (either her or the organizer of the protest), she isn't clear on that.

But in my weapon comparison it's interesting that in one case you would find it acceptable for an officer to take an individual in and then let the magistrate decide whether the 'carry' was lawful or not - but for a protest you believe that, on good faith, the officer shouldn't care.
 
Last edited:
Reg said:
Who determined it was an unlawful order?

Are the cops part of the 1%, too?
Click to expand...
They are the muscle for the 1%, so yes they are virtually part of the 1%. Certainly above the unwashed masses. :lol:
 
Catawba said:
Are you saying that non-violent civil disobedience nullifies the validity of a protest?
Click to expand...

Nice try, but he said peaceful, which equals non-violent.
 
Nick2253 said:
No, you're still not getting it.

I can compare a handshake I get from Mother Theresa to the handshake I get from Adolf Hitler, but I'm not saying that Mother Theresa is the same as Adolf Hitler.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, that makes a lot of sense................:roll:
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I was actually thinking of the situation in which an individual had a license to open-carry - and an officer confronted him in a store thinking he was trying to rob the place. . .

Same thing in both situations: the individual was questioned and the individual believe they knew their rights but - ultimately - the officer's interpretation of the situation matters more and when there's such a conflict it's up to a magistrate (etc) to make the decision whether charges will be filed or not.

For Wolfe it would have been that she *had* a permit to protest - or the protest was permitted properly.

It's not up to the individual to make the decision when confronted by the officers. It shouldn't matter whether we're talking about protesting or sleeping in the street.

And per Wolf's situation - I can't tell if they obtained a permit at all (either her or the organizer of the protest), she isn't clear on that.

But in my weapon comparison it's interesting that in one case you would find it acceptable for an officer to take an individual in and then let the magistrate decide whether the 'carry' was lawful or not - but for a protest you believe that, on good faith, the officer shouldn't care.
Click to expand...


I still don't see how you can compare one unarmed non-violent person with another person carrying deadly force.
 
Catawba said:
I still don't see how you can compare one unarmed non-violent person with another person carrying deadly force.
Click to expand...

You are the only person comparing an unarmed non-violent person with a person carry deadly force.

The only comparison we are trying to make is between two situations with dissimilar actors.

How about some symbology:

A police officer sees Person A doing Action X. Action X could be both legal or illegal. The Police officer makes a judgement call that Action X, in this context, is illegal, and arrests person A. Whether or not Person A's doing of Action X is legal or illegal is irrelevant. What matters is that Action X could be both legal or illegal, and that the police officer must make a judgement call. It's not the police officer's job to make the right judgement call. It's the police officer's job to make the best judgement call. It is then up to the courts to make the right judgement.
 
Catawba said:
I still don't see how you can compare one unarmed non-violent person with another person carrying deadly force.
Click to expand...

I'm comparing the declaration of "I have a right to do this" - not the event itself.

We could be discussing countless other scenarios: They could be coloring on a sidewalk or having sex in their bed - doesn't matter. It's not the act - it's the issue of "who has the authority to declare whether said activity is right or wrong"

If I write it without any "act" or specific event being discussed will it make more sense:

Officer sees individual in the middle of an act.
The individual believes they have the right to do said act and tell this to the officer.
The officer believes they do not have the right to do said act.

So - it's one person's view against the other - who has the authority to settle this conflict? What should be done?

What should be done is that the officer takes the individual to the precinct - and the report is processed and a magistrate (an uninvolved third party) makes the ultimate decision.

If there was no wrong done there are no charges filed and the individual is released.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'm comparing the declaration of "I have a right to do this" - not the event itself.

We could be discussing countless other scenarios: They could be coloring on a sidewalk or having sex in their bed - doesn't matter. It's not the act - it's the issue of "who has the authority to declare whether said activity is right or wrong"

If I write it without any "act" or specific event being discussed will it make more sense:

Officer sees individual in the middle of an act.
Click to expand...

"Act" in this case was standing peacefully on a sidewalk.


The individual believes they have the right to do said act and tell this to the officer.
The officer believes they do not have the right to do said act.

So - it's one person's view against the other - who has the authority to settle this conflict? What should be done?
Click to expand...

Common sense should prevail with the understanding of no harm from standing peacefully on a sidewalk.

What should be done is that the officer takes the individual to the precinct - and the report is processed and a magistrate (an uninvolved third party) makes the ultimate decision.

If there was no wrong done there are no charges filed and the individual is released.
Click to expand...

Meh, seems like there are more important priorities for police than arresting people for peacefully standing on a sidewalk.
 
Catawba said:
"Act" in this case was standing peacefully on a sidewalk.

Common sense should prevail with the understanding of no harm from standing peacefully on a sidewalk.

Meh, seems like there are more important priorities for police than arresting people for peacefully standing on a sidewalk.
Click to expand...

You're really caught up on the "peaceful" bit. But peaceful is a horribly subjective word. A terrorist could be standing peacefully on a sidewalk right before they push the button. A psychopathic murdered could be sitting peacefully in a classroom before he pulls out his piece and starts shooting. Protestors could be standing peacefully on a street corner before rioting.

I hate to break it to you, but my definition of peaceful does not include protesting. If you are waving signs, shouting about "the man," and swearing at police officers, how is that in any way peaceful? And whether or not Ms. Wolf was actually doing any of this was irrelevant. By standing on that corner she was a part of that protest, and she subjected herself to the scrutiny of the police as a member of that protest. In such a situation, police officers DO NOT have to time to make individual judgements about every protestor. It's not their job to remember that Protester A was just standing there while Protesters B, C, and D were trying to incite a riot.

Like I said before, a police officer is not tasked with making the right decision, only the best one under the circumstances.
 
Nick2253 said:
You're really caught up on the "peaceful" bit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, aren't facts a bitch!


But peaceful is a horribly subjective word. A terrorist could be standing peacefully on a sidewalk right before they push the button. A psychopathic murdered could be sitting peacefully in a classroom before he pulls out his piece and starts shooting. Protestors could be standing peacefully on a street corner before rioting.
Click to expand...

So your answer to the paranoia you feel, would be to ban people from sidewalks and ban people from classrooms???

I hate to break it to you, but my definition of peaceful does not include protesting.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a personal problem to me!
 
Catawba said:
Yeah, aren't facts a bitch!
Click to expand...

From Dictionary.com: Peaceful: characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder

By that definition, protesting cannot be peaceful, because protesting is not free from strife, commotion, or disorder. I'll grant that there are other definitions of peaceful that do include protesting. But the fact remains that peaceful is a subjective word, so to claim that any statement using the word "peaceful" is factual is a gross distortion of the word "fact."

So your answer to the paranoia you feel, would be to ban people from sidewalks and ban people from classrooms???
Click to expand...

Your ad hominem attacks are amusing. I never suggested, or even implied, that we should ban people from those areas. My point is that acting "peacefully" in those areas has absolutely nothing to do with the intentions of the actor. You argue as if everyone who appears to be peaceful actually has peaceful intentions. Should the murderer be immune to arrest because he "appears" peaceful? Even if he has the gun out, he is still "free from violence" until he starts shooting.

I'll say this again (even though you've yet to respond to it), a police officer is not tasked with making the right decision, only the best one under the circumstances. Since "peaceful" is a subjective word, it's up to the officer to interpret it, and interpret the motions of the actors, and make the judgement call.
 
The video was worse than I thought it would be, would be better to suggest people NOT listen to it.

It's the end of the world, some liberal outside huffington was arreseted because she disobeyed a police officer for apparently no practical reason.

Say it never happens. Why aren't we spending billions to find investigate this? lol. This is the U.S., not some european socialist dictatorship of years past, or Iran where the military is an extension of the supreme leader. It's ****ing NYC cops trying to earn a living and trying to keep the god damned peace.
 
The flood of threads on this board filled with righty wingers attacking the protests and the protesters and defending repressive police actions against it tells me that I am 100% right in ascribing authoritarian fascistic tendencies to many on the right. At other times they moan and cry about their precious LIBERTY and FREEDOM but only when they see it as benefitting their right wing crusades and goals. I have little doubt that if fascism ever comes to America, right wing libertarians and arch conservatives will be at the front of that effort. Threads like this confirm that with their own words providing a stinging indictment to their own hypocrisy.
 
haymarket said:
The flood of threads on this board filled with righty wingers attacking the protests and the protesters and defending repressive police actions against it tells me that I am 100% right in ascribing authoritarian fascistic tendencies to many on the right. At other times they moan and cry about their precious LIBERTY and FREEDOM but only when they see it as benefitting their right wing crusades and goals. I have little doubt that if fascism ever comes to America, right wing libertarians and arch conservatives will be at the front of that effort. Threads like this confirm that with their own words providing a stinging indictment to their own hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

How Godwin of you. Nice job.
 
Nick2253 said:
From Dictionary.com: Peaceful: characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder

By that definition, protesting cannot be peaceful, because protesting is not free from strife, commotion, or disorder. I'll grant that there are other definitions of peaceful that do include protesting. But the fact remains that peaceful is a subjective word, so to claim that any statement using the word "peaceful" is factual is a gross distortion of the word "fact."
Click to expand...

"peaceful [ˈpiːsfʊl]
adj

3. not involving violence peaceful picketing"
peaceful - definition of peaceful by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.



Your ad hominem attacks are amusing. I never suggested, or even implied, that we should ban people from those areas. My point is that acting "peacefully" in those areas has absolutely nothing to do with the intentions of the actor. You argue as if everyone who appears to be peaceful actually has peaceful intentions. Should the murderer be immune to arrest because he "appears" peaceful? Even if he has the gun out, he is still "free from violence" until he starts shooting.
Click to expand...

Where were the indications of anything other than peaceful intentions?

I'll say this again (even though you've yet to respond to it), a police officer is not tasked with making the right decision, only the best one under the circumstances. Since "peaceful" is a subjective word, it's up to the officer to interpret it, and interpret the motions of the actors, and make the judgement call.
Click to expand...

And if he makes a bad judgment call it reflects poorly on him and his superiors, and lends further support to the protesters.
 
haymarket said:
The flood of threads on this board filled with righty wingers attacking the protests and the protesters and defending repressive police actions against it tells me that I am 100% right in ascribing authoritarian fascistic tendencies to many on the right. At other times they moan and cry about their precious LIBERTY and FREEDOM but only when they see it as benefitting their right wing crusades and goals. I have little doubt that if fascism ever comes to America, right wing libertarians and arch conservatives will be at the front of that effort. Threads like this confirm that with their own words providing a stinging indictment to their own hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy of this statement is astounding. You condemn us for being unwilling to condemn a lawful request by a police officer. I hate to break it to you bub, but those "evil po-leece mans" are one of our most important defenders of liberty. Without a police force, who will defend your property, your family, and your life when someone comes to take it from you? Of course, you could defend it yourself, but what if the owner of the Chase bank that was invaded by the Occupy Oakland protestors had decided to defend his property with a semi-automatic rifle?

Society is a complex and fragile balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the many. I strongly believe that we have tilted too far towards the side of preserving the "rights of the many," and we must tilt back towards the "rights of the individual." But when someone like Naomi Wolf refuses to follow what amounts to a trivial (and legal, by the way) order by a police officer, I will have no sympathy for her. Cox v. New Hampshire granted states the right to place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on protests, and the police officer, as an indirect officer of that state, was acting to enforce the rights of his state.
 
Catawba said:
"peaceful [ˈpiːsfʊl]
adj

3. not involving violence peaceful picketing"
peaceful - definition of peaceful by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my point for me. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with this.

Where were the indications of anything other than peaceful intentions?
Click to expand...

Since neither you nor I were in attendance when the event occurred, how could either of us have any indication of what her intentions were? This is a meaningless argument.

And if he makes a bad judgment call it reflects poorly on him and his superiors, and lends further support to the protesters.
Click to expand...

Again, what is your point? Police officers who consistently make "wrong" decisions will not last very long before they will be let go. But to demand that all police officers make perfect decisions every single time is unrealistic.
 
Nick2253 said:
Thank you for making my point for me. I'm not sure what you were trying to prove with this.
Click to expand...

To refute your claim here:
"I hate to break it to you, but my definition of peaceful does not include protesting."
Click to expand...

Non-violent protest is actually one of the definitions of Peaceful, as I've documented.

Since neither you nor I were in attendance when the event occurred, how could either of us have any indication of what her intentions were? This is a meaningless argument.
Click to expand...

What do you imagine her intentions were, other than what she has stated???



Again, what is your point? Police officers who consistently make "wrong" decisions will not last very long before they will be let go. But to demand that all police officers make perfect decisions every single time is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

I never made that demand?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
To refute your claim here:

Non-violent protest is actually one of the definitions of Peaceful, as I've documented.
Click to expand...

My claim was that my definition of peaceful didn't include protesting. Again, that is my definition. I also linked to a legitimate reference that supports that. You linked to one that didn't. All this underscores my point that "peaceful" is subjective.

What do you imagine her intentions were, other than what she has stated???
Click to expand...

I don't make any assumption about what her intentions were. She may very well have had perfectly peaceful ones. The point is that we cannot play arm-chair judge and make rulings about the situation without either having been there, or hearing testimony from all sides.

I never made that demand?
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're right. That was a little harsh. The word "expect," I think, would have been more appropriate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom