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.
Yep, that is the job of a peace officer, to preserve the peace. If the antagonist didn't cease and desist the potential for violence was growing. Separate the parties, hear what they have to say, and make your decision to detain or not.
The guy with the camera has a right to an attorney, the right to sue the officer and his or her agency and the right to whine and cry abut his rights, but not resist. The officer has a duty to maintain the peace and by not taking action when it was obvious that the situation was heated leaves the citizens on both sides vulnerable.
As for OWS that was a ligitmate protest, something the Crazy Right Wing (people like you Staph) have conflated into something nefarious.
When one side has has all the violence, it is called a heckler's veto, and is condemned by all except lickspittle fascist apologists such as yourself.
Wherein the Penal Code of any jurisdiction or in a legal dictionary is the term "Heckler's veto"? Define it for me if you can and provide the source (your opinion is not a source of anything).
http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v35n03_cc10_leanza_final.pdf
Interesting argument but it would hold no more water than an amicus curiae and has no weight in affecting the decisions and actions of a law enforcement officer seeking to keep the public peace. An officer would be more inclined and better protected by following the policy of his agency and/or direction from a superior.
As a superior officer (Ret.) from a law enforcement agency my call would be as I posted. Do what is necessary to keep the peace, and I would, if called upon to respond, have sent the officer's supervisor to the scene.
The only people who should have been arrested were the students advocating forceful removal of the journalist.
Rationalizing it doesn't make it better, you fascist twat.
Hey, you take pictures of people without their permission, and you keep fucking doing it after they've asked you VERY NICELY to stop, you kind of bring it on yourself.
That guy's lucky he didn't get his creepy ass kicked.
except that he had every right to be taking pictures of anybody he wanted to in that space you mindless moron
When one side has has all the violence, it is called a heckler's veto, and is condemned by all except lickspittle fascist apologists such as yourself.
Wherein the Penal Code of any jurisdiction or in a legal dictionary is the term "Heckler's veto"? Define it for me if you can and provide the source (your opinion is not a source of anything).
http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v35n03_cc10_leanza_final.pdf
Interesting argument but it would hold no more water than an amicus curiae and has no weight in affecting the decisions and actions of a law enforcement officer seeking to keep the public peace. An officer would be more inclined and better protected by following the policy of his agency and/or direction from a superior.
As a superior officer (Ret.) from a law enforcement agency my call would be as I posted. Do what is necessary to keep the peace, and I would, if called upon to respond, have sent the officer's supervisor to the scene.
The only people who should have been arrested were the students advocating forceful removal of the journalist.
Of course, to keep the peace and officer of the law has the authority to order a group to disperse, as well as a single individual. The instigator as well as those whose emotions have been set on edge by another.
As a matter of fact the only person in authority is the Professor, who has a duty and the authority to keep the peace and maintain control of students and interlopers.
Wherein the Penal Code of any jurisdiction or in a legal dictionary is the term "Heckler's veto"? Define it for me if you can and provide the source (your opinion is not a source of anything).
http://law.hofstra.edu/pdf/academics/journals/lawreview/lrv_issues_v35n03_cc10_leanza_final.pdf
Interesting argument but it would hold no more water than an amicus curiae and has no weight in affecting the decisions and actions of a law enforcement officer seeking to keep the public peace. An officer would be more inclined and better protected by following the policy of his agency and/or direction from a superior.
As a superior officer (Ret.) from a law enforcement agency my call would be as I posted. Do what is necessary to keep the peace, and I would, if called upon to respond, have sent the officer's supervisor to the scene.
The only people who should have been arrested were the students advocating forceful removal of the journalist.
Of course, to keep the peace and officer of the law has the authority to order a group to disperse, as well as a single individual. The instigator as well as those whose emotions have been set on edge by another.
As a matter of fact the only person in authority is the Professor, who has a duty and the authority to keep the peace and maintain control of students and interlopers.
That's a lot of fancy words for justifying a mob intimidating a journalist. And it fails anyway.
Interesting argument but it would hold no more water than an amicus curiae and has no weight in affecting the decisions and actions of a law enforcement officer seeking to keep the public peace. An officer would be more inclined and better protected by following the policy of his agency and/or direction from a superior.
As a superior officer (Ret.) from a law enforcement agency my call would be as I posted. Do what is necessary to keep the peace, and I would, if called upon to respond, have sent the officer's supervisor to the scene.
The only people who should have been arrested were the students advocating forceful removal of the journalist.
Of course, to keep the peace and officer of the law has the authority to order a group to disperse, as well as a single individual. The instigator as well as those whose emotions have been set on edge by another.
As a matter of fact the only person in authority is the Professor, who has a duty and the authority to keep the peace and maintain control of students and interlopers.
That's a lot of fancy words for justifying a mob intimidating a journalist. And it fails anyway.
Fancy words? Interesting comment for its lack of substance. What does stand out is your use of the word mob.
In Sociology it is defined as:
A group of persons stimulating one another to excitement and losing ordinary rational control over their activity.
Yet, your use of the word leaves out the antagonist, whose actions bring said "mob" together, and without whom there would be no event upon which to comment.
Though no law seems to prevent his speech or action, we do have a supreme court decision to consider, if one has an open mind and will set aside their bias for the interloper:
"Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), was a United States Supreme Courtcase in which the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."
Of course drug use is not the issue here, but a disruption at a public school seemed necessary and sufficient for an educator to act and infringe the First Amendment Right of Expression in both instances.
Interesting argument but it would hold no more water than an amicus curiae and has no weight in affecting the decisions and actions of a law enforcement officer seeking to keep the public peace. An officer would be more inclined and better protected by following the policy of his agency and/or direction from a superior.
As a superior officer (Ret.) from a law enforcement agency my call would be as I posted. Do what is necessary to keep the peace, and I would, if called upon to respond, have sent the officer's supervisor to the scene.
The only people who should have been arrested were the students advocating forceful removal of the journalist.
Of course, to keep the peace and officer of the law has the authority to order a group to disperse, as well as a single individual. The instigator as well as those whose emotions have been set on edge by another.
As a matter of fact the only person in authority is the Professor, who has a duty and the authority to keep the peace and maintain control of students and interlopers.
That's a lot of fancy words for justifying a mob intimidating a journalist. And it fails anyway.
Fancy words? Interesting comment for its lack of substance. What does stand out is your use of the word mob.
In Sociology it is defined as:
A group of persons stimulating one another to excitement and losing ordinary rational control over their activity.
Yet, your use of the word leaves out the antagonist, whose actions bring said "mob" together, and without whom there would be no event upon which to comment.
Though no law seems to prevent his speech or action, we do have a supreme court decision to consider, if one has an open mind and will set aside their bias for the interloper:
"Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), was a United States Supreme Courtcase in which the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."
Of course drug use is not the issue here, but a disruption at a public school seemed necessary and sufficient for an educator to act and infringe the First Amendment Right of Expression in both instances.
Witnessing and observing an event as a reporter is not "disrupting".
It figures you go out of your way to defend whiny little twats, because you probably are one, and whiny little twats tend to travel in packs.
Fascinating............in the POLITICO thread about Carson, the lefties give the reporter all/every latitude. The reporter and publication is the hero.
In this instance the reporter is EVIL, lol. The subject matter is just a bunch of nice kids, and how dare the reporter try to stand there as these kind students walked forward.
And the prof? Why she is "supergirl" or a close facsimile if you read how the left spins it. And really, the left needs to. If we start shining the light of truth on the factories of far out lefty liberalism known as Universitys , parents may begin to with hold financial support from students wanting to attend the nuttiest institutions. Now we can't have that, now can we?!?!?!! I know I did, lol. One of mine wanted to go to the University of Wisconsin. I told her to go ahead, but not with my money. She ended up at another University, far less liberal. She is now a staunch conservative, so some things have very, happy, endings-)
Fascinating............in the POLITICO thread about Carson, the lefties give the reporter all/every latitude. The reporter and publication is the hero.
In this instance the reporter is EVIL, lol. The subject matter is just a bunch of nice kids, and how dare the reporter try to stand there as these kind students walked forward.
And the prof? Why she is "supergirl" or a close facsimile if you read how the left spins it. And really, the left needs to. If we start shining the light of truth on the factories of far out lefty liberalism known as Universitys , parents may begin to with hold financial support from students wanting to attend the nuttiest institutions. Now we can't have that, now can we?!?!?!! I know I did, lol. One of mine wanted to go to the University of Wisconsin. I told her to go ahead, but not with my money. She ended up at another University, far less liberal. She is now a staunch conservative, so some things have very, happy, endings-)
It's odd, most kids with Authoritarian Fathers Rebel. My wife graduated from the Madison Campus, lucky for her, her Republican Dad had an open mind.
The only people who should have been arrested were the students advocating forceful removal of the journalist.
Of course, to keep the peace and officer of the law has the authority to order a group to disperse, as well as a single individual. The instigator as well as those whose emotions have been set on edge by another.
As a matter of fact the only person in authority is the Professor, who has a duty and the authority to keep the peace and maintain control of students and interlopers.
That's a lot of fancy words for justifying a mob intimidating a journalist. And it fails anyway.
Fancy words? Interesting comment for its lack of substance. What does stand out is your use of the word mob.
In Sociology it is defined as:
A group of persons stimulating one another to excitement and losing ordinary rational control over their activity.
Yet, your use of the word leaves out the antagonist, whose actions bring said "mob" together, and without whom there would be no event upon which to comment.
Though no law seems to prevent his speech or action, we do have a supreme court decision to consider, if one has an open mind and will set aside their bias for the interloper:
"Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), was a United States Supreme Courtcase in which the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use."
Of course drug use is not the issue here, but a disruption at a public school seemed necessary and sufficient for an educator to act and infringe the First Amendment Right of Expression in both instances.
Witnessing and observing an event as a reporter is not "disrupting".
It figures you go out of your way to defend whiny little twats, because you probably are one, and whiny little twats tend to travel in packs.
Putting a camera in ones face, inches away, goes far beyond witnessing an event, when the witness/observer is holding the camera.
Now you're just being stupid, defending your biased opinion thoughtlessly. Are you channeling BEDOWIN62?
It must have been a shitty college, or you would know your topic title should start with "These Are" instead of "This Is".Actually, while attending college I always maxed out reading and writing skills tests.And "This is the Kind of Monsters..." is a phrase that sounds written by someone who didn't even make it as far as college.
So, you can't argue anything but Grammer and punctuation?It must have been a shitty college, or you would know your topic title should start with "These Are" instead of "This Is".Actually, while attending college I always maxed out reading and writing skills tests.And "This is the Kind of Monsters..." is a phrase that sounds written by someone who didn't even make it as far as college.
But I am a product of our pathetic a educational system.....which is lightyears behind Germany or Japan's.It must have been a shitty college, or you would know your topic title should start with "These Are" instead of "This Is".Actually, while attending college I always maxed out reading and writing skills tests.And "This is the Kind of Monsters..." is a phrase that sounds written by someone who didn't even make it as far as college.
Of course they do. Education and intelligence are frowned upon by the nutters.
Yes, we all know NaziCons think education is evil. Here's a perfect example:
Missouri Lawmaker Seeks To Block Students From Studying Restrictive Abortion Law
Well, there are liberal arts colleges
If there were more "conservative" arts colleges, the OP may suggest sending your teens there.
Then again, we do not know which school these events took place.
Well, there are liberal arts colleges
If there were more "conservative" arts colleges, the OP may suggest sending your teens there.
Then again, we do not know which school these events took place.
Conservative arts are engineering, biology, mathematics, etc. That which is quantifiable.
And Silicon Valley is in California, not Alabama.
Did a college produce the person who grammatically butchered the thread title?
lol
And Silicon Valley is in California, not Alabama.
Figured that out all by yourself, did you?
