BS: Americans smile at Police Assault

Subject: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: ichMael
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 08:35 PM

This happened yesterday (9 minute video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppBZM88mHvQ

There is so much wrong with this. Private security guards assualt a man while the people watching the incident sit and smile. Big joke. Police state coming down on one one man practicing his constitutionally-protected right to free speech, and people allow it. Rentacops assaulting a citizen, and people grin.

But the guy would have been fine had he been in a Free Speech Zone. Bill Clinton began those things. While he was giving our nuclear secrets to the Chinese he decided that you couldn't wave an anti-Clinton placard at his events. You had to go to a pen half a mile away from the event to protest.

And as if Free Speech Zones and Alaskans grinning like idiots as their neighbors are brutalized isn't bad enough, you can't even LOOK at the police from your own porch now in North Carolina:

http://www.salisburypost.com/Opinion/082610-edit-resisting-arrest-qcd

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:14 PM

Ichmael
Althought I do not agree with his sign in any manner. I find it distasteful .. even as much as I disliked GW I would not portray GW as Hitler ... however, it appears from that video the man was on public property and he is absolutely correct. He had every right to his sign and every right to say what he did. This is still America. Unless there was something that I missed like him blocking the entrance to something or trying to bar others from some access he cannot be arrested for his political views and his sign.

I would hope the ACLU would jump in and sue the crap out of the rent a cops. I know this guy should. As long as you are not blocking someone's access or preventing others from using a public facility (grounds in this case) he had every right to his sign and every right to voice his opinion.

I do not agree with his opinion but I would have raised holy hell if i were there when they tried to stop him.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 09:26 PM

"The right of our fellow citizens to represent to the public functionaries their opinion on proceedings interesting to them is unquestionably a constitutional right, often useful, sometimes necessary, and will always be respectfully acknowledged by me." --Thomas Jefferson to the New Haven Committee, 1801. ME 10:269

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: ichMael
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:04 PM

"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."

Not only was the restriction of the man's right to free speech abridged, it was done so lawlessly by hired thugs. This happened in the Soviet Union. In East Germany. It's happening in Iraq right now. In Alaska too, and the people sitting around grinning in the video have no idea what's going on. They don't even know what their rights are, and they don't know that what can be done to one can be done to all. That crowd should have beaten those cops down and disarmed them. That's how things are supposed to work in the land of the free.

As far as the Hitler 'stache on Obama and all that, well, I kind of object to the thread running on this forum right now where the lunatic left is advocating shooting people who don't agree with Obama. But this is America, so what the heck. Free speech for all, and use it or lose it.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 10:22 PM

I can't be sure but I think at the beginning of the tape, they said that the man had not paid to get in. At any fair, there is an entrance fee.

Security obviously responded to the fair's organizers who told them to take the guy out.

"...man's right to free speech abridged, it was done so lawlessly by hired thugs."

I think 'thugs' is a little extreme for what security did. They were not rough nor sadistic. I especially noted the one guy patting the man's shoulder.

The part that I consider *really* extreme is portraying the crowd as sitting by and laughing. Anyone looking at that tape knows that was not the case at all. In the one segment there were people who *were* smiling, but you might note that they were nervous smiles.

Later - and throughout the tape - the crowd was very definitely on the man's side, saying that he had done nothing wrong. And several protesting guys didn't snap to when they were told to step back.

* There was no assault.

* There were no thugs.

* There were no smiling goons.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:13 PM

Like Ebbie I really didn't see the crowd harassing him, it looked like most were supporting him. But in any event if we don't protect freedom of speech for everyone , including those we don't agree with we lose it. Little by little I see the Constitution being eroded .. The patriot act is a good example .. we can wire tap without warrant .. The grounds that it was needed holds no water with me. A call to a judge at anytime with probable cause would get a warrant .. but we toss it aside for security reasons. Ben Franklin said those who would trade freedom for security have neither .. so right

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: ichMael
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:23 PM

"I can't be sure but I think at the beginning of the tape, they said that the man had not paid to get in." You say you can't be sure, and then you proceed to build your "reasoning" on that.

The man was there legally, he made sure his film unit set up, and then he went about committing the crime of practicing free speech. I suspect he did it as an object lesson, so we can see how things have deteriorated in America. He did everything by the book. He even informed the thugs harrassing him that he had the right to free speech. He also pointed out repeatedly that it was a public place and the security guards had no right to place restrictions on him that they were not placing on others.

When the guard laid his hand on the man, that was assault. And your fellow Alaskans smiled at the proceedings. "You might note they were nervous smiles." What was there to be nervous about except armed thugs (mercenaries) prowling the fairgrounds?

This was a display of lawlessness caught on video. The guards had no right to attack the man, yet they did, lawlessly, and Alaskans sat by and smiled. Shameful. I thought people up there were independent minded, and yet here you are defending the actions of the Gestapo as they thump someone who speaks against der Furher.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: LadyJean
Date: 27 Aug 10 - 11:45 PM

First of all he's a LaRouche follower. They're a questionable lot, like their leader. Questionable people have the same right to free speech as the rest of us, but I understand why the Alaska State Fair might want him to leave.
Second there's a gap in the film. I don't know what he did in that gap.
Thirdly, this is hardly Rodney King, security asks him to leave. He doesn't. They restrain him. They use a little more force than they should have. They are security guards, and not as well trained as police.

The crowd around him are hardly smiling as the man is subdued. They seem sympathetic. Security guards allow one young woman to give him water.

This video was made by LaRouche followers, who wanted to make one of their own look like a martyr to free speech. I don't suppose it tells the whole story. I would be very interested to know what really went on.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:08 AM

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." This is a restriction on Congress, not an unrestricted right of individuals, and really only covers laws enacted by the Federal government. This right is extended to Alaskans, and laws enacted in Alaska, because a similar right is included in the Alaskan Constitution: "Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." The right to free speech does not extend to private property and non-governmental rules and regulations.

There is no indication that the location of this film, apparently the Alaska State Fair Grounds, is owned and operated by the government of Alaska or not. Some fairgrounds are and some aren't. As I see the video, the issues are much more ones of disturbing the peace and illegal entry than freedom of speech, regardless of what the individual was shouting.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: GUEST,John
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:23 AM

For what it is worth, I am told that the fair is authorised by the state but run by a "Alaska State Fair Corporation". I believe the justification given by the security guards was that this was private property and that his activity was outside ordinary boundaries of a "private" event even if the LaRouche guy paid his admission.

I'm strongly on the side of political speech and support this guy's rights, but I think that this particular infringement can be blamed on the organizers of the fair, not the state or federal government.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: mrdux
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:54 AM

art --

you're right that the free speech clause of the First Amendment "is a restriction on Congress, not an unrestricted right of individuals." but, not to put too fine a point on it, the guarantees of the First Amendment have been pretty uniformly and explicitly applied as restrictions on the individual states and even on municipal governments as a matter of Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment by the Supreme Court since at least 1925 (Gitlow v. New York). the same thing is true of the rest of the First Amendment and most of the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights. state constitutional guarantees that cover the same subjects are typically viewed as additional or supplemental protections.

just to clarify (and pardon the pedantry).

michael

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:11 AM

Perhaps a Clone could correct the thread title?

This wasn't a 'Police Assualt' at all, it was a 'Private Security Guard Assualt' and to suggest it was anything other than that is, IMHO, nothing short of deliberate, gratuitous, anti-police rabble-rousing.

And while they're at it, the Clones might correct the spelling of 'Assualt' in the title too - it's 'Assault'.

just to clarify (and pardon the pedantry).

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: kendall
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 02:15 AM

Freedom of speech, like everything, is not absolute. That flange head came looking for trouble and he found it.
It was NOT assault when the guard laid hands on the trouble seeker. That action was legal.
That man's actions were clearly designed to stir up trouble and inciting to riot is NOT protected by free speech.

As usual, the poster of this thread starts out with a mis statement, it was not the Police but rent a cops.
What's the matter,Michael, the truth not incendiary enough for you? Gotta twist a few facts to make it more volatile?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 03:05 AM

Well, I'm not inclined to change the thread title in this case. The thread is propaganda for an extremist position, and the thread title (including the spelling) is a clear reflection of the contents of the thread - for what it's worth.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: kendall
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:21 AM

I have to assume that he was being held until a paddy wagon could pick him up. He was under arrest, right? If he wasn't arrested, those security people are in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 11:55 AM

The phrase, ich, "He didn't pay to get in" was said. What I don't know, because the subject was not pursued, is if that statement was true.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 12:44 PM

That is the problem with these video's without really seeing how the whole thing came down it is hard to judge. If he broke no law he had the right to his sign and his speech. But you are right, if that is private property then no he doesn't .. But in order for free speech to remain free it has to extend to everyone, even those we find odorous.

Remember the case where the Nazi's wanted to march in Skokie Ill. They won the right to do so. I don't think they ever did march .. Only if America protects everyone's speech can we insure that our children and grand children live in a free nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:22 PM

olddude said, in part:

Ben Franklin said those who would trade freedom for security have neither ..

Something like that, but not quite. What he said was,

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

ATTRIBUTION:        Historical Review of Pennsylvania.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:26 PM

I saw people trying to enjoy themselves at a fair. They were eating at picnic tables nearby. Buddy didn't pay to get in. He was asked to leave. He refused and was hollering at the top of his lungs.

This was not on a street. This was not in a public square. Perhaps he could have taken a position near the entrance but he did not.

I agree with Kendall.

By the way, did buddy say at one point he had been arrested before over a like matter? I didn't quite catch his words. Also, I thought the guards were a bit too rough on him but, unfortunately, there is a right way to take someone down and it does include enough force to ensure one's own safety.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:34 PM

Thanks Dave, I couldn't remember the exact quote .. boy that is one worth remembering isn't it

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:40 PM

"But you are right, if that is private property then no he doesn't .."

Not necessarily.

There was a case in California about 30 years ago where some loud, obnoxious protsters were disrupting shoppers in a multi-store mall.

They were forced to leave but filed suit against the mall owners.

The judge decided that the protesters had a right to be there, on private property, because the shopping center was open to the public.

If that precident is still used, the protester mentioned here is free to hold his sign and exercise free speach on any part of the fair grounds that not subject to an entry fee.

Our local fair grounds has several picnic tables and a parking area that are open to anyone at any time of the day, essentially public land although the fair grounds is privately owned.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:41 PM

He should have been ejected. Period.
He abused his rights by disrupting a venue which had paid admission.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 01:44 PM

Q those are good points. I don't know much about the law as it applies to such. I know here in town they threw out some protestors who were picking for something or other at one of the events the town puts on because of the paid admission thing , I think it had to do with windmills on one of the hills outside of town for generating power.. so you are probably correct. Don't know how or what the event in question was.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: kendall
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 05:43 PM

Why do I get the feeling that Michael is sitting back laughing down his sleeve?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Dumbass Attention Whore
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:09 PM

I'd be embarrassed by this if I were one of his peeps, because the whole thing is pretty lame. It's even more pathetically humorous that it's plastered all over the internet. Too bad nobody opened a popcorn concession, but the whole thing didn't take that long.

Attention whores... whether they're trying to get some YouTube time or stir up an internet tempest in a teacup. Luckily for Ich, people at Mudcat never tire of giving him what he wants.

Every loonie in the world ends up on the Internet, and we're getting more an more of them here at Mudcat, because you LIKE having them here. Boys in the bar like the fights, but I think it's a shame people can't just walk away once in a while, if only out of compassion for those who do NOT want to be neck deep in this shit all the time.

For the record, the guy was arrested. He was found to have a loaded weapon on him. The fairground is on private property. It's not hard to find these things out if you do about 30 seconds worth of 'work' on Google.

Have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 06:21 PM

like Jeri said... a fairground is NOT public property. Any event where someone rents a venue and/or charges admission has control over what is allowed during the event. "Rent-a-cop" is loaded language designed to paint legitimate security personnel in a negative way, no matter what the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:33 PM

Doesn't matter about private property. What matters is the public nuisance this idiot was causing when he did NOT have to do so.

Free speech YAY! Being a nuisance idiot NAY!

Jeri... as for trolls, I apologize, but sometimes I just gotta, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:40 PM

Now it makes sense to me, thank you Jeri
if you are on private property, you are asked to leave and you don't... It is called defiant trespass and yup you get arrested .. now I see what it was about, and that is nothing to do with free speech at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 07:49 PM

I would hope he was not licensed to carry a concealed weapon. However in some states it is far to easy to get one. At least in New York they do so many checks on you (including your medical record) that there is some peace of mind when one is issued that it is a generally a sane and down to earth person. Some states no so... carrying an unlicensed handgun in most states is pretty severe and can get you up to 5 years

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: gnu
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:06 PM

I don`t think he would have used the weapon (small solace and a BIG leap on my conjecture). It seemed clear that he was there for the reason Kendall cited... he was looking for trouble and he found it. In the end, the fact that he had a weapon bolsters the justification for the guards to use proper takedown technique. (Even tho I still think it was a tad ``rougher than needed``. But, safety first, I always say.)

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 08:06 PM

I don't find it very surprising that he got arrested. I've seldom seen a person more obviously hungry for some dramatic form of public martyrdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 10 - 09:04 PM

I think that is because he knew he was being filmed. This was all planned.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 01:56 AM

"Attention Whores"...........great one Jeri! I love it!

I shall use that phrase gleefully at every available opportunity (and they are many!).

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 02:00 AM

And thanks for correcting the mis-spelling of 'Assault' in the title, whoever did it.

I always think that the obvious inattention to detail that's indicated by a poorly-spelled title tells one a great deal about the likely standard of the content of the opening post, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assualt
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 03:15 AM

By the way, the Alaska State Fair is delightful - and you're likely to hear some pretty good folk music there, too.

-Joe, who doesn't agree with the thread title spelling change-

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: gnu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:17 AM

Might even hear Alaska Mike?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:07 AM

Shouldn't have corrected the spelling in the title - its was a good indication of the mental acuity of good old Itch Meal.

Perhaps Itchy's real name is Breibart ?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: gnu
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 08:13 AM

I ypto quite often. And I typo poorly.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:06 AM

Alaska Mike is now Florida Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:32 PM

pdq is right about his observations being in California under California law. New Jersey, Colorado, and North Dakota- maybe a couple of others - are with them. Most are not. Alaska has not addressed it. The analysis works in a counter-intuitive direction: If a state like California wants to protect free speech in quasi-public areas (i.e malls and on private university campuses), the federal courts can knock them back IF the State is unreasonably infringing on property rights. (Land leased from the State or otherwise having some sort of state "presence" may also be subjected to tougher standards favoring free speech.) California does it its way at malls, and New Jersey added in private university campuses, but most states don't bother.

(The feds used to lean toward the freedom of speech side, but tilted toward private property rights in 1976 ("Hudgeons.") pdq's case is "Pruneyard," 1980.)

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 06:40 PM

Thank you, heric. You are gentleman and a scholar, and there are just too few of us anymore.

The case I was thinking about did involve the Pruneyard in Campbell, CA.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 09:51 PM

Heric
but if you are on private property you can be asked to leave and if you don't get arrested for defiant trespass? that is a question, am I right on that one or does it not apply here

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: ichMael
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:20 PM

Okay, what do we have since I last looked in?

Artbrooks: The First Amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." This is a restriction on Congress, not an unrestricted right of individuals, and really only covers laws enacted by the Federal government. This right is extended to Alaskans, and laws enacted in Alaska, because a similar right is included in the Alaskan Constitution: "Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right." The right to free speech does not extend to private property and non-governmental rules and regulations.

Absolutely no notion of what the U.S. Constitution is. Amazing. We're born with the rights. Born with them. The constitution just reiterates that fact and places limits on government. The video showed those rights being violated. The man was attacked and his constitutional rights were violated.

Backwoodsman: No concept of private vs duly-authorized law enforcement. Two private thugs hammer a guy, then a third, duly-authorized cop shows up to tell people that yes, my badge says these thugs can do this. The private thugs are going to lose everything they have in court for their attack. The one actual cop on the scene will probably goosestep away from the incident and continue to protect other lawless contractors.

Kendall: He supports someone who's different receiving an ass-kicking. Wait til it happens to you and yours. You'll flatulate a different tune then.

Joe Offer: Calls this thread propaganda for an extremist position. That's what we've come to, folks...drawing attn to a violation of the First Amendment is extremist.

Kendall: Second thoughts. He was under arrest, right? Too late. You made the call. When they kick your kids' asses you just need to stand back and shut the hell up.

gnu: thinks the guards were a bit too rough on him. Well la-dee-dah. They should have been a little easier on him while they ground him into the ground for exercising his right to free speech.

Q: He should have been ejected. Period. Same as with Kendall, wait 'til it happens to you and yours. Your attitude is so abhorrent to the spirit of America that you should be ejected from anyplace you set foot. Just stay the hell indoors.

Kendall: Michael must be laughing up his sleeve. Hardly. This is a pretty disgusting stuff.

Jeri thinks the episode was humorous. Yuk-yuk. Kill America. Yuk-yuk.

Bill D: "Rent-a-cop" is loaded language designed to paint legitimate security personnel in a negative way, no matter what the situation. Fine. Wait 'til the situation is they're kicking in your head because you spoke out about a city ordinance.

gnu: Doesn't matter about private property. What matters is the public nuisance this idiot was causing when he did NOT have to do so.   I beg to differ. Obama is the greatest traitor I've seen in the white house in my lifetime. Did you know that he just petitioned the U.N. to punish Arizona for human rights violations? That is the most SUPREME ACT OF TREASON I've ever witnessed a president perform. He EARNED a Hitler 'stache with that one. The man in the video was admirably restrained, given the magnitude of Obama's crimes.

olddude: I would hope he was not licensed to carry a concealed weapon. ... Alaska is a Carry at Will state. You don't need a license to carry a gun. Those rent-a-cops were damned lucky the man or someone else there didn't shoot them for their lawlessness. Thoroughly disgusting. Like the old Pinkerton Detectives busting skulls for the robber barons.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:39 PM

But someone really needs to clarify, was it private property or not and if so, if you are asked to leave (in Alaska) can you be arrested for defiant trespass. You can here. I am trying to understand why he was arrested then unless it was for trespass. Typically disorderly conduct does not apply for political sign carrying. Again I do not agree at all with his views, just trying to understand the situation that lead to his arrest and take down in such manner. One cannot be arrested for having political views others don't like but one can be for trespass in this state on private property. Please clarify. if Alaska is a free carry state then his possession of a firearm was legal and should not be an issue in the discussion, unless he pulled it, but I didn't see that .. did anyone read why they arrested him what the charges were?

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 10:52 PM

ichMael
    and I wish you would consider posting other things then political threads. You seem to have a good knowledge of music and the outdoors. I enjoyed talking with you on the infamous skunk thread .. Although the mudcat seems to be saturated lately with politics and religion it is really suppose to be about music. Lots more stuff to talk about then left or right politics ...

I agree with you that the bill of rights lately is very much being undermined, I suspect no one here would disagree with that. But you have a good knowledge of the outdoors and music and many of us do also and it would be nice to not bicker so much on these political threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:29 PM

old dude: I >think< that if you have to pay for entry and you don't pay, they can kick you out / call it trespassing, anywhere. (I have no idea what the rules are about being arrested for trespass - and here it would be an Alaska question.) However, if the property is generally open to all comers, and somebody kicks one or a group out, in Colorado/California/New Jersey/North Dakota (Pennsylvania?), the aggrieved can say "you were unreasonably stifling my free speech as your true or main or only possible intent." So he/they could sue in one of those states or one of the undeclared (or particularly ambiguous) states (like Alaska) and find out how the state judges want to play it - under their own state constitution as constrained by the US Bill of Rights.

Good question about what he was arrested for.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Slag
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:35 PM

One could assume from the number, diversity and behavior of the attendees that this was a lawful public assembly. Many different types of activities and behavior was going on which leads me to believe this was a wide open and peaceful assembly:   a State fair and a common occurance in the 49 other United States. This is an event for citizens of the host state and as such it cannot bar citizens from any of the Unitied States, OK? I would argue that even if the land was private land it is obviously, for this event, open to the public and is therefor subject to all the rights of the citizens of this free country. All the other folk there were exercising their rights so I have to assume that this gentleman was among that larger number.

Did he pay to get in? Let's assume that is also the case. Why? Because if it were simply a matter of gate-crashing he would have been summarily escorted out and that would have been the end of the matter. No, something else was going on here (but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?).

The reason we have the First Amendment is not to protect speech with which we may agree. It is the protection of speech with which we may strongly disagree or even hate. Without that, no one is free. Futhermore the so-called politically correct speech is against our freedoom of speech in that it attempts to surpress disagreeable speech. For that reason, I reject political correctness. Our freedom of speech has nothing to do with an individual's opinion(s).

It is just the same in this gentleman's case. I may find his sign ugly and disagreeable and his opinons digusting but he has his right to them. He wasn't inciting violence or unlawful activity. He was, in fact, presenting a polical opinion. This is the very speech that the framers of the Constitution had in mind when the First Amendment was drafted and adopted.

This man suffered an extreme violation of many rights, chief of which was his being denied his First Amendment rights. He was also assualted when the security guard (Gestapo) laid hands on him. That is battery. Assualt occured when they interferred with his lawful activity.   His private property was unlawfully taken (the sign). He was hurt and that is a fact. If you don't believe that, have a 450 pound gorilla sit on you and see how you feel. He was not violent and he posed no flight risk and yet they held him down in the dirt. The goon squad had to have been private security because only at the end of the piece did we see an individual wearing a shirt marked "police". Only a sworn police officer can receive a citizen's arrest which I assume was what these eight-balls were attempting to do. I would love to see a follow-up to this story. It looked like something out of 1938 Nazi Germany.

If this clip doesn't send chills and warning signs flashing through your brain, we have already lost the noble revolution begun some 230 plus years ago. Wake up America.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:37 PM

(Of course you can create ambiguity in varying degrees most anywhere - so he could sue in any of the states by using the State Fair connection as something new and different to consider.)

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: olddude
Date: 29 Aug 10 - 11:52 PM

Well I keep posting to this thread because it is important and we should discuss it. Do I like the guy in the video ... I find him obnoxious and wouldn't give him the time of day on the street. But I see some points here. What did he do wrong? Being a loud mouth that most people don't like? Having political views that most people don't like, and even having a hate sign of Obama. Those are not crimes. He was man handled pretty good but if I broke no law I would object pretty strong also .. I know this was a set up as a test .. but it troubles me on a couple of levels now. Heric just explained private property and what conditions apply to free speech even on private property..

now I gotta believe he did nothing wrong .. my friends Thomas Jefferson was pretty clear and so is the Constitution.   I really need to know what charges were brought on him cause right now as much as I dislike the guy and all he stand for and believe me I do.. He is an American with rights..

You see we did this same stuff with the Patriot act using a lot of excuses to disregard the Bill of Rights .. disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Americans smile at Police Assault
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Aug 10 - 12:14 AM

"Backwoodsman: No concept of private vs duly-authorized law enforcement. Two private thugs hammer a guy, then a third, duly-authorized cop shows up to tell people that yes, my badge says these thugs can do this. The private thugs are going to lose everything they have in court for their attack. The one actual cop on the scene will probably goosestep away from the incident and continue to protect other lawless contractors."

ichMael: no concept of English Comprehension. Created a thread with the title 'Americans smile at Police Assualt', which I pointed out was untrue - the 'assualt' was carried out by private security employees, not the police. ichMael reads that in reverse, and proposes it as being an indication that I don't understand the difference between private v. duly-authorised law enforcement. Shows complete lack of understanding which must be deliberate, I can't believe he really is that stoopid.

<> WGaF? At least I can spell.

Odd how police-haters and barrack-room lawyers can't spell 'assault'.
They know all about 'assualt', all about everyone's 'rights', they know the Constitution back to front, but they're complete fuckwits when it comes to spelling it.
WTF?