The Incredibly brave US Cops

USFREEDOM911 said:
The protesters rights stop, when they interfer with the rights of others.
What are the Police supposed to do, after they inform the protesters that they need to move?
Click to expand...

They are supposed to uphold and obey the law, evidently you have a problem with people engaging in peaceful protest.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
They are supposed to uphold and obey the law, evidently you have a problem with people engaging in peaceful protest.
Click to expand...

You seem to keep ignoring that the protest was told to move on and have yet to say what should be done, when the protesters refuse.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
What they always did in the past, pick them up and carry them!! Pepper spray is only meant to be used as a defence to violence.
Click to expand...

who are you to deprive the protesters of the experience they crave.....if they had simply gotten up and walked to the side of the road they would never have been sprayed........they were fully aware of that.....they chose to be sprayed......they wanted to be able to tell their grandchildren that once upon a time they had sat in the middle of the road to keep people from driving to work and that they were willing to suffer pepper spay in order to keep blocking the road so people couldn't get to work.....the story wouldn't be nearly as cool if they had to tell them the police just picked them up and carried them to the side of the road.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
who are you to deprive the protesters of the experience they crave.....if they had simply gotten up and walked to the side of the road they would never have been sprayed........they were fully aware of that.....they chose to be sprayed......they wanted to be able to tell their grandchildren that once upon a time they had sat in the middle of the road to keep people from driving to work and that they were willing to suffer pepper spay in order to keep blocking the road so people couldn't get to work.....the story wouldn't be nearly as cool if they had to tell them the police just picked them up and carried them to the side of the road.......
Click to expand...

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
They didn't disperse.
What should the Police do, when the protesters refuse to disperse?
Click to expand...

\\(())// said:
What should they do?

http://manuals.ucdavis.edu/PPM/390/390-20.pdf

http://manuals.ucdavis.edu/PPM/390/390-40.pdf

Show me where pepper-spraying passive protesters is authorized.
Click to expand...

Nice article; but I didn't see where the use is prohibitied.
You post articles but still haven't answered my question.
I take it you don't have an answer and just want to bitch and moan.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
What they always did in the past, pick them up and carry them!! Pepper spray is only meant to be used as a defence to violence.
Click to expand...

And when they link arms and refuse to let go.
OH, I KNOW.
They get to cry Police brutality; because they were "injured" when they were seperated.

Do you care to try and think again?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Proof that it was an unlawful order or STFU and STFD; because all you do is cry like a child, about EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I probably shouldn't assume that you know what the above is, seeing how you do nothing but show yourself to be a blathering badge blowing idiot, but this is the 1st Amendment to the constitution of the united states. This has been commonly called the 'law of the land'. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are what we call 'fundamental' rights.

So, now that we hopefully have that part out of the way, let me introduce you to some case law on the subject of rights.

In Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 389 (1978) the Court emphasized that “When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.

The above case means that if the people exercising their fundamental right to peaceably assemble, a simple command by a uniformed thug of state carries no legal effectiveness and is therefore unlawful.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

The above intends to protect that right to peaceably assemble and invalidates any state or local ordnance that would impede the exercise of that right.

And just to silence the rest of your idiocy...

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256 137, 180

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd Section 177

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison

so STFU and STFD so you can learn from your intellectual superiors.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I probably shouldn't assume that you know what the above is, seeing how you do nothing but show yourself to be a blathering badge blowing idiot, but this is the 1st Amendment to the constitution of the united states. This has been commonly called the 'law of the land'. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are what we call 'fundamental' rights.

So, now that we hopefully have that part out of the way, let me introduce you to some case law on the subject of rights.

In Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 389 (1978) the Court emphasized that “When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.

The above case means that if the people exercising their fundamental right to peaceably assemble, a simple command by a uniformed thug of state carries no legal effectiveness and is therefore unlawful.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489

"Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them." Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

The above intends to protect that right to peaceably assemble and invalidates any state or local ordnance that would impede the exercise of that right.

And just to silence the rest of your idiocy...

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256 137, 180

"Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2nd Section 177

"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v. Madison

so STFU and STFD so you can learn from your intellectual superiors.
Click to expand...

I didn't even bother reading your reply; because I asked you to show me where THIS was an unlawful order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top