how 'reasonable restrictions' gets used against you

http://www.itemlive.com/articles/2011/12/19/news/news04.txt

First police charged his brother for assaulting a thief allegedly breaking into his truck.

Now Ken McKay Jr., of Swampscott says police told him he risks being arrested and up to a $5,000 fine and or a year in prison for supporting his brother by holding a protest outside Lynn District Court

Ken McKay Jr, said he planned to organize a protest outside Lynn District Court on Jan. 24, the scheduled date of his brother’s pre-trial hearing.

He said he wanted to highlight an “unjust” charge against his brother. He also wanted to support proposed legislation that protects individuals “in any place that they have a right to be” from civil and criminal liability due to death or injuries to an assailant if the individual acted in self-defense.

But when Kenneth McKay Jr. told Lynn Police about his plans to protest, he said that Capt. Chris Reddy told him that protesting “in or near” the courthouse violated Massachusetts law.

Reddy cited Massachusetts General Law Chapter 268 Section 13A. The law states “Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the commonwealth ...” can be sentenced to a fine of up to $5,000 and/or a year imprisonment.

Ken McKay Jr. also said that Reddy told him he could not move across the street to City Hall.

Now Ken McKay Jr. said it is his free speech that is being threatened.

Lynn Police Spokesperson Lt. Christopher Kelly deferred to the captain’s interpretation of the law.

“Common sense would tell me, somewhere where you could be seen or heard by the courthouse,” would be considered “near,” as according to the statute, Kelly said.

“I know this individual probably feels that the freedom of speech is being trampled on,” Kelly acknowledged. “But there are limits to freedom of speech — you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — and the Mass. Legislature decided that Massachusetts courthouses should be above the fray of people trying to picket.”
 
That restriction applies in many jurisdictions. We had a guy here arrested for the same thing when he tried to inform jurors of the concept of jury nullification. Police, DA's and the courts don't want anyone interfering with the administration of swift "justice". Hopefully this guys jury will see the stupidity of his prosecution.
 
That restriction applies in many jurisdictions. We had a guy here arrested for the same thing when he tried to inform jurors of the concept of jury nullification. Police, DA's and the courts don't want anyone interfering with the administration of swift "justice". Hopefully this guys jury will see the stupidity of his prosecution.
I don't believe it's about 'swift justice' as much as I believe that it's about 'public policy' anymore. the government has been trying to get away from being restricted by the constitution and the courts were the way to do it. removing any knowledge of the rights of jurors to judge the law is the final step, to ensure that government can promote new public policy instead of the law.
 
I don't believe it's about 'swift justice' as much as I believe that it's about 'public policy' anymore. the government has been trying to get away from being restricted by the constitution and the courts were the way to do it. removing any knowledge of the rights of jurors to judge the law is the final step, to ensure that government can promote new public policy instead of the law.

I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. First of all you talk about a thief allegedly breaking into his truck, if the guy wasn't breaking into the brother's truck why was he assaulted? So the brother is in prison for assaulting a man, we got that part, the brother claims the man was attempting to steal his car. Have the police arrested this attempted thief? Does this have any relation to the main person?

Now we come to the main guy, who is apparently protesting that his brother is being arrested for assaulting a man, which we know he did, and he wants to demonstrate in support of proposed legislation that protects individuals “in any place that they have a right to be"*. Instead of actually being in the court room to you know, support his brother. He marches around outside the courthouse chanting and waving signs, or however he feels like protesting. The police inform him that this would be in violation of state law. This IS a reasonable restriction, do you want the irish mob organizing a "protest" when you're deliberating on one of their guys? Now our good friend Ken McKay Jr., of Swampscott is complaining that he is having his rights violated. Apparently this good brother is supporting his sibling by breaking more laws to show that it's totally fine to assault somebody and wander off.

Tell me again how this is supposed to be the governments fault? How about this guy does the normal thing and sits in court with his brother and waits for the results from the jury. You know that legal method of decided about guilt, rather than just blaming the government.



*whatever that means.
 
I have no idea what your point is supposed to be. First of all you talk about a thief allegedly breaking into his truck, if the guy wasn't breaking into the brother's truck why was he assaulted? So the brother is in prison for assaulting a man, we got that part, the brother claims the man was attempting to steal his car. Have the police arrested this attempted thief? Does this have any relation to the main person?

Now we come to the main guy, who is apparently protesting that his brother is being arrested for assaulting a man, which we know he did, and he wants to demonstrate in support of proposed legislation that protects individuals “in any place that they have a right to be"*. Instead of actually being in the court room to you know, support his brother. He marches around outside the courthouse chanting and waving signs, or however he feels like protesting. The police inform him that this would be in violation of state law. This IS a reasonable restriction, do you want the irish mob organizing a "protest" when you're deliberating on one of their guys? Now our good friend Ken McKay Jr., of Swampscott is complaining that he is having his rights violated. Apparently this good brother is supporting his sibling by breaking more laws to show that it's totally fine to assault somebody and wander off.

Tell me again how this is supposed to be the governments fault? How about this guy does the normal thing and sits in court with his brother and waits for the results from the jury. You know that legal method of decided about guilt, rather than just blaming the government.



*whatever that means.

How about you go fuck yourself.
 
http://www.itemlive.com/articles/2011/12/19/news/news04.txt

First police charged his brother for assaulting a thief allegedly breaking into his truck.

Now Ken McKay Jr., of Swampscott says police told him he risks being arrested and up to a $5,000 fine and or a year in prison for supporting his brother by holding a protest outside Lynn District Court

Ken McKay Jr, said he planned to organize a protest outside Lynn District Court on Jan. 24, the scheduled date of his brother’s pre-trial hearing.

He said he wanted to highlight an “unjust” charge against his brother. He also wanted to support proposed legislation that protects individuals “in any place that they have a right to be” from civil and criminal liability due to death or injuries to an assailant if the individual acted in self-defense.

But when Kenneth McKay Jr. told Lynn Police about his plans to protest, he said that Capt. Chris Reddy told him that protesting “in or near” the courthouse violated Massachusetts law.

Reddy cited Massachusetts General Law Chapter 268 Section 13A. The law states “Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the commonwealth ...” can be sentenced to a fine of up to $5,000 and/or a year imprisonment.

Ken McKay Jr. also said that Reddy told him he could not move across the street to City Hall.

Now Ken McKay Jr. said it is his free speech that is being threatened.

Lynn Police Spokesperson Lt. Christopher Kelly deferred to the captain’s interpretation of the law.

“Common sense would tell me, somewhere where you could be seen or heard by the courthouse,” would be considered “near,” as according to the statute, Kelly said.

“I know this individual probably feels that the freedom of speech is being trampled on,” Kelly acknowledged. “But there are limits to freedom of speech — you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — and the Mass. Legislature decided that Massachusetts courthouses should be above the fray of people trying to picket.”

Sounds like that law/judgement where one can not stop an illegal search of ones home. One must allow the search to take place and then have the court address the legality of it.

So, should you witness someone trying to steal your truck/car call 911 but do not interfere. Is that the moral of the story?
 
wtf is wrong with everybody? why are you all focused on the crime aspects of his brother and the truck instead of the part I bolded, that of the First Amendment violation?
 
wtf is wrong with everybody? why are you all focused on the crime aspects of his brother and the truck instead of the part I bolded, that of the First Amendment violation?

Priority, man. Priority. Ya don't mess with another man's truck!

Besides, Bush already trashed the Constitution. And, yes, Obama is continuing because that's precisely what happens when the door is opened. Once the power is given to one POTUS every succeeding one has it and pushes it a little further. Did any Righties speak up when Bush and Cheney went ape-shit? Nooooo.

The terrorists have succeeded in changing the US more than they could ever have imagined. Now you're strip-searched before boarding a plane and if they don't like your face you're off to the caverns where hangs the sign, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter."

Here's one more Internet Acronym that will become popular: TFL....Too f@cking late.
 
Priority, man. Priority. Ya don't mess with another man's truck!

Besides, Bush already trashed the Constitution. And, yes, Obama is continuing because that's precisely what happens when the door is opened. Once the power is given to one POTUS every succeeding one has it and pushes it a little further. Did any Righties speak up when Bush and Cheney went ape-shit? Nooooo.

The terrorists have succeeded in changing the US more than they could ever have imagined. Now you're strip-searched before boarding a plane and if they don't like your face you're off to the caverns where hangs the sign, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter."

Here's one more Internet Acronym that will become popular: TFL....Too f@cking late.

the reason they can push a little further is once YOUR side has that extra power to use, it's easier for you to just apologize for it and bitch about the last president that did it first.

the Libertarians DID bitch about Bush and his newfound powers, but you lefties wouldn't side with us, instead just labeling us as radical. the one thing you and the conservatives agree on is the one thing you're both wrong on.
 
the reason they can push a little further is once YOUR side has that extra power to use, it's easier for you to just apologize for it and bitch about the last president that did it first.

the Libertarians DID bitch about Bush and his newfound powers, but you lefties wouldn't side with us, instead just labeling us as radical. the one thing you and the conservatives agree on is the one thing you're both wrong on.

Democrats have been the biggest critics by far of BushII.


What the heck are you taling about?

That is a truly warped perception you have there.
 
Democrats have been the biggest critics by far of BushII.


What the heck are you taling about?

That is a truly warped perception you have there.

please, the only thing left and right agree on is never letting a 3rd party gain power. you both will team up and denigrate anyone NOT of the establishment.
 
please, the only thing left and right agree on is never letting a 3rd party gain power. you both will team up and denigrate anyone NOT of the establishment.

Damn, you are thick. Remember Ted Kennedy calling out Bush for the liar he was, on the senate floor?
At the time, no one else had had the balls to speak out due to the " if yer not fer us, you is again us" policy.
 
Damn, you are thick. Remember Ted Kennedy calling out Bush for the liar he was, on the senate floor?
At the time, no one else had had the balls to speak out due to the " if yer not fer us, you is again us" policy.

right, left, middle, independent, libertarian, and countless other 'political affililiations'....and I'M the thick one? besides the fact that you're stuck in two gear mode, and wrong, what is your opinion of the 'reasonable restrictions' in my OP? or do you prefer to go with the same tired liberal excuse of 'well bush did it'?
 
right, left, middle, independent, libertarian, and countless other 'political affililiations'....and I'M the thick one? besides the fact that you're stuck in two gear mode, and wrong, what is your opinion of the 'reasonable restrictions' in my OP? or do you prefer to go with the same tired liberal excuse of 'well bush did it'?

I am not going to arue your inane point that democrats did not critizise BushII. You are in lala land if that is what you believe.
As to the OP, it should be clear to you that I completely agree with you. Just look at my responses in the thread.
 
I am not going to arue your inane point that democrats did not critizise BushII. You are in lala land if that is what you believe.
As to the OP, it should be clear to you that I completely agree with you. Just look at my responses in the thread.
you couldn't argue an inane point, simply because I didn't make it. If you inferred that I said democrats didn't criticize bush, you're comprehension is in question.
 
Back
Top