Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The guy was not there as a Police Officer, but as a Security Officer. Two different things. Security Officers do not have Arrest powers being the main difference. The assualt charges belong being filed against the him, the Security Officer, for even touching the man. Something he is not legally allowed to do as a Security Officer.
If that's the case shouldn't he contact ACLU for help?
I wouldn't know if the ACLU would jump in on that or not.. But if you go the linked article, you can see quite plainly that his shirt is marked "Security" and not "Police".
He doesn't have any police authority until he identifies himself as a police officer. Until that happens, he's simply a "rent-a-cop".
*shrug* If this is 'news', you have been watching too much Glenn Beck or Fox News.
Its incorrect to infer from this isolated incident that the First Amendment is in some sort of jeopardy.
It is not a First Amendment violation for law enforcement to request a citizen abide the rules of a public forum:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
And the First Amendment clearly doesnt authorize assault against a law enforcement officer.
Moreover, there is no evidence the detention of Small had anything to do with his message, or that the detention was in any way intended to deny Small his right to express himself or preempt the message Small wished to express. The state took no action to deny Small the right to disseminate his message via an alternate means of communication, or to enact a punitive measure designed to punish Small should he indeed attempt to express his message.
Clearly this incident in no way constitutes a First Amendment violation, the First Amendment remains respected and intact, and the OP succeeds in only demonstrating himself to be a partisan demagogue.
The OP would also be well-advised to research a subject before posting, thus avoiding exhibiting his ignorance, as opposed to simply taking at face value the spin from a disreputable, partisan, and compromised source such as The Blaze.
Perhaps you missed the fact that the "Security Officer" was not there in his capacity as a Police officer. He is clearly identified by his shirt as "Security", not police.
The assault on a Police charges are bogus. Once he grabbed Small he committed assault. Security Officers do not have the same authority to touch someone as a Police Officer does.
Allow me to offer just a tad of advice here ...
Go to google dot com and put "first amendment" into the search window.
READ IT.
Watch very closely for the words, "Congress shall make no law ..." You should be able to find those words pretty easily because they are the very first words of the amendment.
Now, go back to the idiot story at Blaze and search for any mention of the US Congress passing a law that impacts this particular incident. Now, think real hard .....................................
(1) the man violated the stated rules of the forum and had alternative opportunity to have his question submitted and answered
(2) the citizen was allowed to violate the forum rules for almost a minute
(3) the security guard/cop clearly identified himself by showing his badge to the belligerent citizen and told the citizen to stop it
(4) the citizen refused the cop's orders and resisted by struggling for a moment when taken by the arm
(5) the cop took the citizen to the back of the room and talked with him, the citizen continued his belligerency, and left the cop no alternative but to arrest and cuff and transport the citizens for his own safety
Reactionaries on the far wacky right: you don't get to interpret the law on the ground, be belligerent, and resist lawful arrest. You are also unaware that the police had a long chat with the blond who tried to interfere when the cop stepped in to do his duty.
------------------------------From the linked article...
However, Small began speaking out against the districts use of Common Core, prompting a security guard, who was also a police officer, to approach him and order him to leave. Lets go! he said sternly.
When Small didnt immediately comply, the officer began pulling his arm and pushing him towards the exit. Some audience members gasped at the cops use of force.
Dont stand for this, the father said as he was dragged out. You are sitting here like cattle! Is this America?
Small also urged other parents to demand answers on Common Core and the curriculum being used to educate their children.
As the Baltimore Sun reports, the officer then pushed Small and then escorted him into the hall, handcuffed him and had him sit on the curb in front of the school.
Small was charged with second-degree assault of a police officer and faces a $2,500 fine and up to 10 years in prison. He was also charged with disturbing a school operation, which carries an additional $2,500 and up to six months in jail.
.Small attempted to push the officer away when he first approached him, the police report claims. Watch the video and decide for yourself if Small assaulted the officer:
The Second Degree assualt on a police officer should never have been filed and should have been thrown out the next morning.
The guy was not there as a Police Officer, but as a Security Officer. Two different things. Security Officers do not have Arrest powers being the main difference. The assualt charges belong being filed against the him, the Security Officer, for even touching the man. Something he is not legally allowed to do as a Security Officer.
If that's the case shouldn't he contact ACLU for help?
I wouldn't know if the ACLU would jump in on that or not.. But if you go the linked article, you can see quite plainly that his shirt is marked "Security" and not "Police".
He doesn't have any police authority until he identifies himself as a police officer. Until that happens, he's simply a "rent-a-cop".
What does the school board anticipate needing security personnel at all? Could it be they are intent on forcing an unpopular curriculum on the public, that they already have an inkling that the general public does not agree with their leftist agenda?
Not going to happen, drones strike me dead if I am wrong.*shrug* If this is 'news', you have been watching too much Glenn Beck or Fox News.
They have fortunately been unsuccessful to this point in their quest to disarm Americans. As soon as they succeed in that endeavor, we will see dissenters shot dead in public. Serves as a deterrent to others. Until then, watch for drones...coming to your neighborhood soon.
Not going to happen, drones strike me dead if I am wrong.*shrug* If this is 'news', you have been watching too much Glenn Beck or Fox News.
They have fortunately been unsuccessful to this point in their quest to disarm Americans. As soon as they succeed in that endeavor, we will see dissenters shot dead in public. Serves as a deterrent to others. Until then, watch for drones...coming to your neighborhood soon.
Allow me to offer just a tad of advice here ...
Go to google dot com and put "first amendment" into the search window.
READ IT.
Watch very closely for the words, "Congress shall make no law ..." You should be able to find those words pretty easily because they are the very first words of the amendment.
Now, go back to the idiot story at Blaze and search for any mention of the US Congress passing a law that impacts this particular incident. Now, think real hard .....................................
are you the dumbest fuck on the face of the earth or what? well then again I never did see a lib who actually understood the bill of rights. that's right genius, 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. which means people are given the right to free speech and no one can take that away from them. but in this case, that guys right was being taken away from him. on who's authority? since there is no authority capable of limiting his speech. but of course you left wing dingbats were all up in arms claiming OWS's free speech was being hampered by the authorities. I didn't see congress passing any laws there. I swear, the left gets dumber and more hypocritical by the day
