• 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!

Judge: OWS Protesters Wrongfully Arrested On Brooklyn Bridge

TheDemSocialist said:
This is just a small victory. Maybe the NYPD were just out to knock those "Un-American hippie heads"? Who knows. But just a small victory.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Response? [/LEFT]
Click to expand...

A drop of water in a bucket of vinegar. Many of the OWS were arrested for actually breaking the law.
 
clownboy said:
Except that's a bit of a reframe. The right is to peacefully assemble. Now, unless you are going to assert that common traffic law should be overturned because it hinders the right to free speech or assemblage, it's a law you have to follow to get to the peaceful assembly right.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works at all. Nobody has "get to" anything to exercise their Constitutionally granted rights, the Constitution has already granted it in the Bill of Rights.
 
Lokiate said:
That's not how it works at all. Nobody has "get to" anything to exercise their Constitutionally granted rights, the Constitution has already granted it in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. NONE of the rights listed in the BOR are absolute. Especially when their exercise interferes with the rights of others or the public safety. The SCOTUS has, through the centuries, confirmed this time and again.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, they do. NONE of the rights listed in the BOR are absolute. Especially when their exercise interferes with the rights of others or the public safety. The SCOTUS has, through the centuries, confirmed this time and again.
Click to expand...

You must be high. You're justifying violation of the Constitution to satisfy your point of view, and that's not how it works, either. The federal courts have already ruled against these police officers, so the courts are obviously disagreeing with you in this case.
 
Lokiate said:
You must be high. You're justifying violation of the Constitution to satisfy your point of view, and that's not how it works, either. The federal courts have already ruled against these police officers, so the courts are obviously disagreeing with you in this case.
Click to expand...

Okay, then answer YoungConserv's question. Or just inform us which of the rights listed in the Constitution is absolute and not set aside/altered for public safety and the abridging of the rights of others.

This is one lower court decision by a liberal court. I don't see it getting to the SCOTUS, but the decision does not comport with previous SCOTUS decisions regarding individual constitutional rights vs public safety laws.
 
clownboy said:
If you want to see it that way, yes. You can't claim freedom of speech when yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater either. Oh my, all your rights are gone! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

But the thing is no one is yelling fire.
 
clownboy said:
Okay, then answer YoungConserv's question.
Click to expand...
I answered his questions some time ago. If he wishes to ask me more, he can. If you're referring to post #125, he was talking to you brochacho.

Or just inform us which of the rights listed in the Constitution is absolute and not set aside/altered for public safety and the abridging of the rights of others.
Click to expand...
None of the rights should ever be set aside for such erroneous concepts such as "public safety". Ever. Each and every one of the first 10 Amendments has been violated, except, to my knowledge, the 3rd.

This is one lower court decision by a liberal court. I don't see it getting to the SCOTUS, but the decision does not comport with previous SCOTUS decisions regarding individual constitutional rights vs public safety laws.
Click to expand...
Federal courts are liberal now? lulz.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So its only free speech and peaceful in verified and accepted "zones"?

2i6kxhz.jpg


Thats some great "freedom" there...
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I think police need to keep their cool and be reasonable. Maybe that was not the case here but I wasn't there and I am guessing you weren't either.
 
Lokiate said:
The fact that it's their Constitutional right to protest. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
Click to expand...

You don't have a Constitutional right to protest. You have a Constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Intentionally blocking traffic, is not peaceful.
 
Aberration said:
You don't have a Constitutional right to protest. You have a Constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Intentionally blocking traffic, is not peaceful.
Click to expand...
OWS doesnt claim to be just protesting. They also claim to be engaged in Civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a form of rebellion. So its a bit more than just protesting.
 
Lokiate said:
I answered his questions some time ago. If he wishes to ask me more, he can. If you're referring to post #125, he was talking to you brochacho.
Click to expand...

No, you really haven't, and yes I know he mistook what I was saying, but his question applies to your current argument.

Lokiate said:
None of the rights should ever be set aside for such erroneous concepts such as "public safety". Ever. Each and every one of the first 10 Amendments has been violated, except, to my knowledge, the 3rd.
Click to expand...

What's your argument then? That they should be absolute? And that the SCOTUSes over the last two centuries have gotten it wrong?

Lokiate said:
Federal courts are liberal now? lulz.
Click to expand...

Some are.
 
Aberration said:
You don't have a Constitutional right to protest. You have a Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.
Click to expand...

The right to protest and the right to peaceably assemble are the same thing.
 
YoungConserv said:
So it's not covered under right to peacefully assemble ad the cops where right ?
Click to expand...
Its a little more complicated than that. Not all the people knew what they were assisting. But yes it can be documented that the intent was Civil disobedience in many of the demonstrations. The case in point the actual intent was to take the bridge and stop the traffic so regardless of the police making it appear that walking in the lane was ok or not. OWS went to the bridge with the intent to stop traffic by occupying the lanes. The proof is on the official websites of the protesters. So yes the cops were right but they screwed up by leading them onto the bridge. Personally I think that the cops involved should be reprimanded and address the protesters in court whether they had intent or not. Once on the bridge many refused to leave the bridge up until arrested. Those people still broke the law no matter how they arrived at the scene.
 
Do we have incorporation or not with the constitution?
 
clownboy said:
No, you really haven't, and yes I know he mistook what I was saying, but his question applies to your current argument.
Click to expand...
That's for him to decide.



What's your argument then? That they should be absolute? And that the SCOTUSes over the last two centuries have gotten it wrong?
Click to expand...
I've made my argument clear from the start. Are you trying to argue that the Supreme Court is infallible?


Some are.
Click to expand...
So you're saying they got it wrong?
 
Thunder said:
as long as you are not striking others, you are being peaceful. Non-violent protest and passive resistence includes blocking traffic with your passive body.
Click to expand...

And you are also subject to arrest.

You are failing to understand that the purpose of blocking traffic like that is to make a scene and get arrested to bring more attention to your cause.

Too many people are failing to understand the POINT is to be arrested, and they are starting to think that they have an absolute right to do that and NOT be arrested.

That is not the case.
 
Lokiate said:
Then define what you believe qualifies as peaceful.
Click to expand...
Any form of protest where uninvolved people are free to go about their usual business with minimal disruption.

Minimal disruption would be in the form of having to take a different route because police have shut down a particular road due to a permitted march on a particular roadway in which the police were able to facilitate re-routing traffic and get advanced word out to the community that this road would be shut down on X day during X hours due to a permitted protest.
 
zstep18 said:
So.....pretty much no protest.
Click to expand...

huh? You can protest without disrupting people.

Why do you feel it is necessary to disrupt people in order to get your message across?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom