NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a link to a video of a man in my opinion counter-protesting illegals as he was stopped in traffic due to others protesting. I am just trying to figure out why he was arrested and why some of the others around him were not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOe5uYFcXzY

if he was counter protesting at a major event, he's lucky all he get was a shit kicking and no its not unfair he was being a prick pure and simple

though to be fair I only watch the first few seconds of that video because I had realized it was not only a waste of my time but youtube bullshit

edit: "if they where willing to break this law what makes you think they won't break others"

seriously thats the stupidest thing I've heard all day and I've posted on NSG

if he was counter protesting at a major event, he's lucky all he get was a shit kicking and no its not unfair he was being a prick pure and simple

though to be fair I only watch the first few seconds of that video because I had realized it was not only a waste of my time but youtube bullshit

edit: "if they where willing to break this law what makes you think they won't break others"

seriously thats the stupidest thing I've heard all day and I've posted on NSG

I was trying to find a pure video of the event. So sorry for the added commentary but it is the end of the video that had me scratching my head at the incident. This was a widely discussed topic on radio today in the Seattle area this is why I had to look it up and see what the fuss was about.

What this goes to show is just how dumbed-down the Adobe Suite has become. See kids? Even semi-literate folk can assemble a video, complete with titling and motion-graphics.

Sloppy production, though. Somebody's got too much time on their hands and a cracked copy of PremierePro. Whoopee!

I was trying to find a pure video of the event. So sorry for the added commentary but it is the end of the video that had me scratching my head at the incident. This was a widely discussed topic on radio today in the Seattle area this is why I had to look it up and see what the fuss was about.

the Youtube video really sent out the wrong message. I would've rather put it more like the police arresting a silent counter-protester (Who looked like he did comply to the officer's orders) while others did worse right infront of them. (actually being confrontational, Criminial property damage, etc.)

but being that the person decided to put the video on youtube without first turning it over to both news as well as lawyers/police IA... the question of whether or not it was edited comes into focus and now I wonder what, if anything, may have been edited out.

if someone can find another video/newscast...

but it is the end of the video that had me scratching my head at the incident

I ended up watching the whole thing anyway :)

I'd say the cops where still in the right on this, the guy was putting not only his but there lives at risk in his own stupidity so I'd say they lost there temper (though they might also of wanted to show they weren't putting up with it so the crowd stays calm and doesn't decide to lynch the guys enforcing the laws)

Police subduing someone intentionally provoking a mass of protestors, no fucking way!

Of course no one brings up the fact that this guy is very much relying on a protection that illegal immigrants barely (or don't) have: the police.

This guy was acting in this manner solely because he knew the police would protect him. He cannot exactly get pissed off when they do so.

I ended up watching the whole thing anyway :)

I'd say the cops where still in the right on this, the guy was putting not only his but there lives at risk in his own stupidity so I'd say they lost there temper (though they might also of wanted to show they weren't putting up with it so the crowd stays calm and doesn't decide to lynch the guys enforcing the laws)

if the video is unedited...

the man complied when officers asked him to put his hand down.

so why did they then reach into his car, and attempt to pull him out of a vehicle that was in gear?

that had a better possiblitiy of sparking a riot than him flicking off the parade.

anyone know when this happened?

no, man gets arrested by the cops cause cops are dicks. welcome to the club.

that had a better possiblitiy of sparking a riot than him flicking off the parade.

at that point I don't think any of the protesters gave a rats arse what the cops did to the guy nobody stands up for a guy who just flipped them off

Was he charged with anything?

I wonder... if it was... say an Anti-Abortion parade or if it was an Same-Sex Marriage or Pro Bush/Iraq War and that person was doing the exact same thing and everything else in the video was the same (well, obviously the captions would be different...) quietly holding up his finger... would you all be posting the same thing?


:confused:

I wonder... if it was... say an Anti-Abortion parade or if it was an Same-Sex Marriage or was Pro Bush/Iraq War and that person doing the exact same thing and everything else in the video was the same (well, obviously the captions would be different...) quietly holding up his finger... would you all be posting the same thing?


:confused:

I would argue that those parades would be more prone to violence than this one, so yes.

at that point I don't think any of the protesters gave a rats arse what the cops did to the guy nobody stands up for a guy who just flipped them off
except other spectators who are watching this exchange...

you never know.

and while on the subject... no, my opinion is that the guy did NOT get a beatdown.

would you all be posting the same thing?

I'd still think hes an idiot who was asking for trouble as would the police

Oh God, I bet that video was made by stormfront or something, poor white americans...

I wonder... if it was... say an Anti-Abortion parade or if it was an Same-Sex Marriage or Pro Bush/Iraq War and that person was doing the exact same thing and everything else in the video was the same (well, obviously the captions would be different...) quietly holding up his finger... would you all be posting the same thing?


:confused:

"All"? "Same thing"? Last I checked, this thread is one page old...

*edit: dang time warpage.

Was he charged with anything?

Don't know the story just came to light today. I would assume that he couldn't be charged for a crime. However dumb he may have been he was within his right I believe. The police in my opinion from watching the video were the ones breaking the law.

you never know.

mob behavior is cruel, if the police had started arresting people threatening the guy all hell would of broken loose on a few guys and a man in cuffs

Oh God, I bet that video was made by stormfront or something, poor white americans...

I doubt the video was made from stormfront. My question here is why was this person arrested for making a silent protest?

Oh God, I bet that video was made by stormfront or something, middle-upper class white americans...

edit for accuracy :p

if the video is unedited...

the man complied when officers asked him to put his hand down.

so why did they then reach into his car, and attempt to pull him out of a vehicle that was in gear?

that had a better possiblitiy of sparking a riot than him flicking off the parade.

anyone know when this happened?

May 1 of this year.

"All"? "Same thing"? Last I checked, this thread is one page old...

*edit: dang time warpage.
Just thinking back to other past threads...

like the no protest zone, which was to prevent violence...
the cops who tasered that college student that refused to leave the library...
and such. those threads demonized the cops within the first couple posts... yet here, where a cop arrests someone for quietly counterprotesting (well, according to a suspected to be highly edited video.) even to the point of pulling him out of his running car and forcing him to the ground to be arrested... and it's all that guy's fault.

mob behavior is cruel, if the police had started arresting people threatening the guy all hell would of broken loose on a few guys and a man in cuffswell, they could've just told him to keep his arm down and then arrest him after he repeatedly flicks the parade off.

again tho. any idea when this happened? or if there is other sources than this video?

for all we were shown, maybe the guy wasn't quiet and was belligerent and actually deserved worse than what the police did.

EDITED: thanks Marrakech II

edit for accuracy :p

I think you're over-estimating their position. I did say the Adobe Suite had been dumbed down... my gut tells me lower-middle.

the story just came to light today

took them a year to figure out how to use youtube?

I doubt the video was made from stormfront. My question here is why was this person arrested for making a silent protest?

I would guess the police would have seen it as an incitement to riot. Still, if he was arrested, the people who were damaging his car should have been also been arrested but that didn't happen.

May 1 of this year.

No, it says May 1, 2006 at the beginning of the video.

I didn't know that I was standing up to someone if I flipped them off, though. Guess that guy that gave me the finger on the morning commute was standing up for something when he sped past me.

took them a year to figure out how to use youtube?

Happened only 8 days ago.

Well at least the police are equally brutal, you know, they don't do it in a partisan fashion...

If I were to walk down the street screaming "Fuck You" to random people, and assuming I hadn't yet gotten my ass kicked, how do you think the police would have reacted?

Just thinking back to other past threads...

like the no protest zone, which was to prevent violence...
the cops who tasered that college student that refused to leave the library...
and such. those threads demonized the cops within the first couple posts... yet here, where a cop arrests someone for quietly counterprotesting (well, according to a suspected to be highly edited video.) even to the point of pulling him out of his running car and forcing him to the ground to be arrested... and it's all that guy's fault.

no, man gets arrested by the cops cause cops are dicks. welcome to the club.
...

No, it says May 1, 2006 at the beginning of the video.

I didn't know that I was standing up to someone if I flipped them off, though. Guess that guy that gave me the finger on the morning commute was standing up for something when he sped past me.

Well maybe so but when I was listening to the radio they had a police spokesman on that would not comment until it was investigated. So that tells me that the date was wrong on the video and it did actually happen on May 1 of 2007. I wasn't there, so.....

Geez, I need to get out of this country. Fast.

Geez, I need to get out of this country. Fast.

I keep tellin' you people, but do any of you listen? Fuck no.

If I were to walk down the street screaming "Fuck You" to random people, and assuming I hadn't yet gotten my ass kicked, how do you think the police would have reacted?

Lol, nothing would happen to you. Walk down a major city street and you can see the mentally ill saying all sorts of things. As long as someone is not threatening physical harm to another person or property I believe the "freedom of speech" clause still applies.

I keep tellin' you people, but do any of you listen? Fuck no.

We all going to come up to Canada? Hope there is room....

Well maybe so but when I was listening to the radio they had a police spokesman on that would not comment until it was investigated. So that tells me that the date was wrong on the video and it did actually happen on May 1 of 2007. I wasn't there, so.....

Even the user that posted the video said it was from last year. Maybe you heard about something different?

That's the problem with free speech. People say they want it until someone does or says something they disagree with.

Lol, nothing would happen to you. Walk down a major city street and you can see the mentally ill saying all sorts of things. As long as someone is not threatening physical harm to another person or property I believe the "freedom of speech" clause still applies.

If I went out of my way to personally provoke people on the street, the authorities would not intervene to at least protect my own well-being?

Do you think that the police would actually continue until I got myself seriously injured?

Even the user that posted the video said it was from last year. Maybe you heard about something different?

Alright well if that is the case then it was reported as this year by KIRO and KVI radio in Seattle today. This is where I heard it from. They reported it as this past May 1. If that is wrong then shame on them. If it were in 2006 or 2007 I think my question still applies equally.

Don't know the story just came to light today. I would assume that he couldn't be charged for a crime. However dumb he may have been he was within his right I believe. The police in my opinion from watching the video were the ones breaking the law.
Well if he isn't going to be charged for anything, then the cops probably just want to relocate the guy. I mean, he did just piss off a mob of lawbreakers and as you could see in the video they weren't pleased to say the least. Now tell me, which would be easier to do: relocate a mob of people, or relocate one person? I mean if they seriously disliked the man because of his beliefs, they could have just left him for the mob to shitkick.

Oh God, I bet that video was made by stormfront or something, poor white americans...

You must remember the White Anglo-Saxon peoples of this nation are a minority, and very under-privileged. Not to mention they have little to no representation in the Governmnent, or in the National Society...*head explodes*

Even the user that posted the video said it was from last year. Maybe you heard about something different?

I found several youtube and other stuff about cops arresting protesters on May 1st. but not specifically the seattle one...


anyone know if there is a significance of the white mask? saw it in several Immigration Parades/protests...

We all going to come up to Canada? Hope there is room....

We're a bigger land mass than you.

We're a bigger land mass than you.

but isn't most of it under ice and snow for most of the year?

then again, perhaps that would be a good thing about global warming... :p

Alright well if that is the case then it was reported as this year by KIRO and KVI radio in Seattle today. This is where I heard it from. They reported it as this past May 1. If that is wrong then shame on them. If it were in 2006 or 2007 I think my question still applies equally.

Well if he isn't going to be charged for anything, then the cops probably just want to relocate the guy. I mean, he did just piss off a mob of lawbreakers and as you could see in the video they weren't pleased to say the least. Now tell me, which would be easier to do: relocate a mob of people, or relocate one person? I mean if they seriously disliked the man because of his beliefs, they could have just left him for the mob to shitkick.

I think Posi has the right idea. A guy flipping off a much larger crowd of protesters could get into a fight pretty easily, and if the police let it go that far they might get a riot on the their hands, fast. So, they removed him to prevent an incident they couldn't handle. Is there any information on what happened to him after this, or maybe a video not so heavily edited? I'm suspicious of that particular bit presenting the entire story, especially with the added commentary and music.

If I went out of my way to personally provoke people on the street, the authorities would not intervene to at least protect my own well-being?

Do you think that the police would actually continue until I got myself seriously injured?

Out of curiosity what about the clowns that protest at funerals? Are they arrested for going out of their way to provoke? I don't think so. This guy did nothing on that scale if you ask me.

I found several youtube and other stuff about cops arresting protesters on May 1st. but not specifically the seattle one...


anyone know if there is a significance of the white mask? saw it in several Immigration Parades/protests...

I have an idea but would like to hear an explanation.

Well maybe so but when I was listening to the radio they had a police spokesman on that would not comment until it was investigated. So that tells me that the date was wrong on the video and it did actually happen on May 1 of 2007. I wasn't there, so.....

I love how you conclude the video is erroneous -- but only about the date. :headbang:

"I'd say the cops where still in the right on this, the guy was putting not only his but there lives at risk in his own stupidity so I'd say they lost there temper (though they might also of wanted to show they weren't putting up with it so the crowd stays calm and doesn't decide to lynch the guys enforcing the laws)"---Call to power

in the right? so now illegally pulling people from their cars and cuffing them is the 'right' thing to do? i shudder to think what you believe is 'wrong'

oh no, the stupidity! exercising your right of free speech to show your disdain for a bunch of thugs.

i hope the cops get what they deserve for ignoring criminals while they arrest decent people for no good reason.

but isn't most of it under ice and snow for most of the year?

then again, perhaps that would be a good thing about global warming... :p
No, that's ignorant, you're being ignorant.

I'm three quarters of the way up Alberta, and there is no snow here. If it is really that much of a problem, move to Vancouver; they are lucky to have snow on the ground for five days out of a year.

if he was counter protesting at a major event, he's lucky all he get was a shit kicking and no its not unfair he was being a prick pure and simple

though to be fair I only watch the first few seconds of that video because I had realized it was not only a waste of my time but youtube bullshit

edit: "if they where willing to break this law what makes you think they won't break others"

seriously thats the stupidest thing I've heard all day and I've posted on NSG

Illegal Immigrants are known to have a higher crime rate. This really pisses me off. :upyours: @ Mexico and its invasion.

i hope the cops get what they deserve for ignoring criminals while they arrest decent people for no good reason.

evidence that man in question was decent? seems to me that he is at least leaning more towards racist fucktard.

Ugh, this whole illegal-immigrant rights/pride/march for freedom thing is seriously, seriously getting to me. Think about it, what right do I, or any of you have to waltz onto someones property without permission and claim that you live there now? None. Exactly.

So these people come onto U.S. property, without permission, and then expect to be treated just fine. Does anyone else have a problem with this? Anyone at all? Anyone in this country? I guess this guy did, and he was arrested for it. Whether or not he would have started a riot is none of their concern. If he does, it's their job to arrest the law breakers, not the guy exercising his freedom of speech.

This is just wrong on so many levels.

Does anyone else have a problem with this?

yeah, actually there are a bunch of neo-nazis you could go hang out with. have fun with that.

I love how you conclude the video is erroneous -- but only about the date. :headbang:

If they reported on an old story then that was an error on the newsrooms part. I heard it on the radio today as they reported it. Besides that what is your point?

Lol, nothing would happen to you. Walk down a major city street and you can see the mentally ill saying all sorts of things. As long as someone is not threatening physical harm to another person or property I believe the "freedom of speech" clause still applies.

Try reading Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=315&invol=568), 315 U.S. 568(1942). Particularly 315 U.S. at 571-72:

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 , 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352.

yeah, actually there are a bunch of neo-nazis you could go hang out with. have fun with that.

The guy(Legondia) was making a decent point. Somehow you want to tie him in with Neo-Nazi's? You got to be kidding.

snip....

You and your case quoting. However you want to point out legal cases it is in my opinion only selective enforcement on the authorities part. If this was the case the guys protesting the funerals would be arrested every time.

"evidence that man in question was decent? seems to me that he is at least leaning more towards racist fucktard."---Free Soviets

i don't mean that he is always decent, or even decent in general.....but his actions at the time in question were perfectly decent.

so showing displeasure with a group of thugs that are intentionally making your life difficult is evidence to you of someone being a 'racist fucktard'? i must not have a clear understanding of the phrase

Here is a link to a video of a man in my opinion counter-protesting illegals as he was stopped in traffic due to others protesting. I am just trying to figure out why he was arrested and why some of the others around him were not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOe5uYFcXzY
Well, besides the fact that the captions make claims that the film doesn't back up, I don't know what else to say. The people who damaged his car ought to be arrested, sure, and the ones who were talking shit when he was down on the ground are dicks, but there's no proof that the people he was "counter-protesting" were illegals or that he was as innocent as he claims--not from the film clip anyway.

The guy was making a decent point. Somehow you want to tie him in with Neo-Nazi's? You got to be kidding.

no, just offering an answer to the question. yes, there are people who think this is wrong. they happen to be nazis.

as for a decent point, do you mean to tell me that you think that it is sensible to talk about trespassing on a country?

The guy was making a decent point. Somehow you want to tie him in with Neo-Nazi's? You got to be kidding.

I know you weren't referring to the alleged "counter-protestor," but you should be asking yourself: What point exactly was he making? How was he making it?

"evidence that man in question was decent? seems to me that he is at least leaning more towards racist fucktard."---Free Soviets

i don't mean that he is always decent, or even decent in general.....but his actions at the time in question were perfectly decent.

so showing displeasure with a group of thugs that are intentionally making your life difficult is evidence to you of someone being a 'racist fucktard'? i must not have a clear understanding of the phrase

Okay--there's no evidence that the majority of the protesters were thugs, and secondly, they weren't intentionally making that guy's life difficult. If I'm not mistaken, the march was planned, permitted and announced by the city--that means that if the guy in his car had been paying attention, he wouldn't have been jammed up in traffic in the first place.

Illegal immigrants protesting are "fighting words" in my opinion, why didn't they get arrested?

because your opinion is stupid and doesn't carry legal weight?

no, just offering an answer to the question. yes, there are people who think this is wrong. they happen to be nazis.

as for a decent point, do you mean to tell me that you think that it is sensible to talk about trespassing on a country?

as long as countries have borders that are reconized on an International Level, then yes, people can talk about tresspassing on a country.

America is a country of unwanted crazy tax-evasionist immigrants, what's so bad about having more of them?

Illegal immigrants protesting are "fighting words" in my opinion, why didn't they get arrested?

Shoot, if we're just letting people who are breaking U.S. federal law walk around on the street, why aren't we seeing more protests by escaped convicts or drug dealers?

"I'd say the cops where still in the right on this, the guy was putting not only his but there lives at risk in his own stupidity so I'd say they lost there temper (though they might also of wanted to show they weren't putting up with it so the crowd stays calm and doesn't decide to lynch the guys enforcing the laws)"---Call to power

in the right? so now illegally pulling people from their cars and cuffing them is the 'right' thing to do? i shudder to think what you believe is 'wrong'

oh no, the stupidity! exercising your right of free speech to show your disdain for a bunch of thugs.

i hope the cops get what they deserve for ignoring criminals while they arrest decent people for no good reason.

It's not whether what the cops did was right or wrong, it was the fact that they did it to someone that was protesting against something Call to power beleives in. That makes it ok.

Go right ahead, deport all these 'illegal' immigrants, then see how well your economy goes...

I know you weren't referring to the alleged "counter-protestor," but you should be asking yourself: What point exactly was he making? How was he making it?


I think it is all in how you the reader interpet what he said. Right?

Go right ahead, deport all these 'illegal' immigrants, then see how well your economy goes...

That is not what this thread is about. Give them guest workers visas and they won't be illegals anymore. Also the economy does not solely function on immigrant labor.

because your opinion is stupid and doesn't carry legal weight?

Who's does then?

as long as countries have borders that are reconized on an International Level, then yes, people can talk about tresspassing on a country.

in what sense does the united states own my house such that a person without the proper paperwork could be trespassing?

The guy(Legondia) was making a decent point. Somehow you want to tie him in with Neo-Nazi's? You got to be kidding

because your opinion is stupid and doesn't carry legal weight?

To understand Free Soviets, you have to remember, he/she/it feels it's perfectly acceptable to use violence to silence those who disagree with him/her/it.

"Okay--there's no evidence that the majority of the protesters were thugs, and secondly, they weren't intentionally making that guy's life difficult. If I'm not mistaken, the march was planned, permitted and announced by the city--that means that if the guy in his car had been paying attention, he wouldn't have been jammed up in traffic in the first place."---The Nazz

i never said there was evidence that a majority are thugs....but it is obvious that many are. They were certainly intentionally making life difficult. if you weren't, then it is easy to not block the road. You cannot honestly believe that they are so dumb that they cannot see where the road is and where it is not. So you're saying that having knowledge of the event beforehand somehow makes him not have to show up to work or go other places?

in what sense does the united states own my house such that a person without the proper paperwork could be trespassing?

In the sense that you are a registered citizen (I'm assuming) of the United States and that you thereby agree to be a part of the country. If you don't like it, you can leave, or not pay taxes (which is illegal, and another thing illegal immigrants don't do).

in what sense does the united states own my house such that a person without the proper paperwork could be trespassing?

Who said anything about the US owning your house?
Your question was about the point of trespassing on a COUNTRY.

btw... don't mistake that I am arguing on the same points as others on this thread, my beef with Illegal Immigrants; that is those here Illegally, not those here on work programs, visas or whatnot, is that they are here Illegally. change the laws that make what they did/are doing illegal to allow them to stay and I'll stop my argument.

so if an "open border" policy is passed with every country (not just with Mexico,) then I'll stop arguing for the arrest and deportation of Illegal immigrants.

Do I think that current policies and procedures reguarding the processing of applications need to change? yes. but until it does, the law is the law.

In the sense that you are a registered citizen (I'm assuming) of the United States and that you thereby agree to be a part of the country. If you don't like it, you can leave, or not pay taxes (which is illegal, and another thing illegal immigrants don't do).

Is there a point to all this? The immigrant problem is an economic problem above all.

Is there a point to all this? The immigrant problem is an economic problem above all.

True, but what is your point?

So you're saying that having knowledge of the event beforehand somehow makes him not have to show up to work or go other places?


It is to laugh.





edit: on second thought, it is to weep...

Is there a point to all this? The immigrant problem is an economic problem above all.

ah, but WHOS economic problem? the USA's or the country that the immigrants are coming from?

Who said anything about the US owning your house?
Your question was about the point of trespassing on a COUNTRY.

my house is on the country too. in order for being without papers to be trespassing, the government must have control over who is a trespasser in my house and i must not.

ah, but WHOS economic problem? the USA's or the country that the immigrants are coming from?

YES

in the lower right hand corner you see a 'Quote' button.

there is also a picture of a page with quotation marks on it. pressing the word "Quote" will pull up a reply screen with the person's quote on it.

pressing the picture (and turning it red) will allow you to quote multiple posts.

might be easier than retyping people's quotes. :cool:

Is there a point to all this? The immigrant problem is an economic problem above all.

is not a problem at all. is a boon.

i just cut and paste. call me old fashioned, but i prefer the quotation marks to the little boxes of text.

You and your case quoting. However you want to point out legal cases it is in my opinion only selective enforcement on the authorities part. If this was the case the guys protesting the funerals would be arrested every time.

Yeah, those pesky cases. Sad how the law can get in the way of a legal argument.

BTW, selective enforcement isn't a defense. Nor is it a particularly good argument in this case.

my house is on the country too. in order for being without papers to be trespassing, the government must have control over who is a trespasser in my house and i must not.

Your house in within the country.
So the Government has control over who enters the country.
you have control over who enters your house.

the Government requires the papers/forms/fees/etc to enter the country. that's how the Gov requires permission to be asked and handed out. but you don't require that, you only require a verbal invitation/permission and verbal reply. but that doesn't mean you can't require people to fill out forms in order for them to enter your home.

I wonder who's going to pay for the damages to that man's car.

I wonder who's going to pay for the damages to that man's car.

An insurance company, if the guy has that sort of coverage. Maybe the police can use the tape put online to find the guy who did it and make him pay for it.

I wonder who's going to pay for the damages to that man's car.

he will.

even if the insurance pays for it (tho they might consider it his fault for "provoking" the response) his premiums will be raised. and even if, on the off chance, that the person is identified, he can argue that he didn't break the glass. (it was a cut scene that showed the broken glass, so difficult to say who did it.)

Yeah, those pesky cases. Sad how the law can get in the way of a legal argument.

BTW, selective enforcement isn't a defense. Nor is it a particularly good argument in this case.

I am sure those two police could not quote the case you put out there as a justification for arresting this individual.

Also, why is it that this guy that organizes protests of funerals not been arrested? Under the case that you quote I would think it would fall into the realm of "breaking the law". What do you think?

Go Home, Job Stealers!!

Go Home, Job Stealers!!

Nice try here at threadjacking. This thread is about someone getting arrested for flipping off others that are protesting. Doesn't really matter what the protest was about really.

Gee... Whoda fucking thunk. The Police acting out their duty to preserve the peace? A man being arrested for violating the fighting words doctorine (Y'know, flipping someone off is fighting words. Not protected speach). Protesters acting like protesters? Police attacking the easy target protester?

Who'da fucking thunk.

The disgusting far-right spin in the movie, and the fact that it never shows "Mexicans hitting his car" makes the movie, at best, suspect.

if the video is unedited...

the man complied when officers asked him to put his hand down.

so why did they then reach into his car, and attempt to pull him out of a vehicle that was in gear?

Presumably, he did more than just flip the bird. He probabaly pissed off the cops in some way that has nothing to do with politics or immigration.

no, man gets arrested by the cops cause cops are dicks. welcome to the club.

Not all cops. Just the vast majority of riot cops assigned to protests, in my experience.

I wonder... if it was... say an Anti-Abortion parade or if it was an Same-Sex Marriage or Pro Bush/Iraq War and that person was doing the exact same thing and everything else in the video was the same (well, obviously the captions would be different...) quietly holding up his finger... would you all be posting the same thing?


Of course. The reason for this protest has nothing to do with the interaction between this man and the police.

My question here is why was this person arrested for making a silent protest?

The simplest answer was that he was not arrested for making a silent protest. He was probably arrested for being a dick to the cops. I am going to suggest that by this time both the cops and the guy were in pretty pissy moods.

I wonder who's going to pay for the damages to that man's car.

Consider this: the footage shows one person bumping against the car, and then shows a broken window. The video has obviously been edited. There is no reason to suppose that the broken window is from the same car, or was even shot at the same time and place.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that the fellow who hit the car actually broke the window (I like the way the narration claimed the guy was a Mexican, even though you only see his back for one second. good eyes, dutch). Too bad for the driver. He was being arrested at the time. He was obviously doing something illegal. If his car was damaged in the process, the state has no obligation to pursue a case on his behalf.

Here is a link to a video of a man in my opinion counter-protesting illegals as he was stopped in traffic due to others protesting. I am just trying to figure out why he was arrested and why some of the others around him were not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOe5uYFcXzY

I'm not even gonna watch it, because I'm sure it'll just piss me off.

When I saw that crap on the news about them border patrol agents who were charged because they violated an illegals rights, who they very well knew was a drug dealer.. and they put them agents up on trial, in jail.. .. well that was it. I lost all faith in our government. What was it on..? a few minutes Lou Dobbs(he specializes in it-- he posed to put the most air time I'm sure) .. where else.. a glimpse.. like it's shit. We are freakin owned by the media. You don't believe it? Unless you have no imagination whatsover .. Imagine this... All media stations start playing everything they can find on slavery, on lynchings.. You gonna sit there and tell me all hell wouldn't break loose? Hell man.. I had a friend who happened to be near, not IN, but NEAR a black neighborhood when the movie Mississippi Burning went into the dollar theatre.. him and his friend got beat the fuck down for being nothing other than white males. They were 13. And for you who say.. Well.. that's what they get for being white (which is a crime nowadays.. the worst thing you can be born as is a white male {I know MANY white liberals who tee totally will deny this fact. They are asleep}.. you are just generally hated.. no plea you have will ever be taken seriously.. you are the evil white man!.. -- the best thing you can be born as, at least here in America , is a black woman-- make that a black lesbian jew and well you got it made-throw in a handicap for good measure I presume .. or that one of your anscestors was a slave) .. I'd wager you are either young, sheltered(rich--more than likely a rich liberal --) or naive, or all 3.

Well, that's it. America is officially ****ed. LIBERALS I TAKE IT WILL SUPPORT ME BIG ON THIS! They had no-right to do that to this man. If you disagree then you are the very evil you Liberals are trying to prevent.

We all going to come up to Canada? Hope there is room....

Well, then THEY might have a lot of illegals on their hands...

I'm not even gonna watch it, because I'm sure it'll just piss me off.

When I saw that crap on the news about them border patrol agents who were charged because they violated an illegals rights, who they very well knew was a drug dealer.. and they put them agents up on trial, in jail.. .. well that was it. I lost all faith in our government. What was it on..? a few minutes Lou Dobbs(he specializes in it-- he posed to put the most air time I'm sure) .. where else.. a glimpse.. like it's shit. We are freakin owned by the media. You don't believe it? Unless you have no imagination whatsover .. Imagine this... All media stations start playing everything they can find on slavery, on lynchings.. You gonna sit there and tell me all hell wouldn't break loose? Hell man.. I had a friend who happened to be near, not IN, but NEAR a black neighborhood when the movie Mississippi Burning went into the dollar theatre.. him and his friend got beat the fuck down for being nothing other than white males. They were 13. And for you who say.. Well.. that's what they get for being white (which is a crime nowadays.. the worst thing you can be born as is a white male {I know MANY white liberals who tee totally will deny this fact. They are asleep}.. you are just generally hated.. no plea you have will ever be taken seriously.. you are the evil white man!.. -- the best thing you can be born as, at least here in America , is a black woman-- make that a black lesbian jew and well you got it made-throw in a handicap for good measure I presume .. or that one of your anscestors was a slave) .. I'd wager you are either young, sheltered(rich--more than likely a rich liberal --) or naive, or all 3.

1. I've never seen anything on the news about Border Patrol agents, link please?(No aggression here, just haven't heard anything about it).

2. I don't think if media stations started playing stuff on slavery many African Americans would riot. They'd be too busy acting like Gangbangers.

3. White males in general have more advantages than any other group of people on the face of the planet. Why wouldn't people begrudge that?

4. Black women, on the other hand, pretty much suffer more injustices than most groups. Hence why they are 'celebrated' and paraded in the media like Charity Cases.

May 1 of this year.

We're 2006? I didn't know that :p

Here's why I don't support either way:

The video makes claims that cannot be substantiated. It says the protesters are hitting his car and him (Yeah right, as if you can see that from still pictures. If you had a video, why not post it?). It's also extremely difficult to hear what the cop outside is saying, so you cannot expect to hear what the man inside said to the cop. I didn't even see the man getting yanked from the car before the car started moving. I saw both of the cop's hands on the door itself when the car began moving.

Overall, however, let us assume that the cop did yank him, that'd make little sense if he hadn't said anything wrong (you know, the whole innocent until proven guilty which I will apply either way). We all know from that story with the woman who was speeding to the hospital, how, when the cop pulled her out, he got a lot more violent when she hadn't put on the hand brake.

So, do we have an reputable sources on this, other than some video on youtube?

So, do we have an reputable sources on this, other than some video on youtube?

It would be nice to have enough information to make an informed decision.

1. I've never seen anything on the news about Border Patrol agents, link please?(No aggression here, just haven't heard anything about it).

Oh good lord (not at you.. but at the point i was trying to make.. that it HAS NOT been known as it should be. There isn't a wiki about it! hmm.. I'd link to it,, but I'm sure the link I put up would be trashed.. so I'll just give you their names. Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos.

2. I don't think if media stations started playing stuff on slavery many African Americans would riot. They'd be too busy acting like Gangbangers.

That's racist! And you are wrong.

3. White males in general have more advantages than any other group of people on the face of the planet. Why wouldn't people begrudge that?

That imo, applies mostly to white collar areas. And not all of it. But really, be honest.. who knows more about that? Who's had more experience in that? Whites and Jews, or Blacks? It's not that there isn't any blacks in this field. Certainly there are. But you can't blame everyone else for them not being there in the same numbers the people who have been doing this shit for centuries have been. As far as blue collar(blue collar is not poor btw.. you can make 50k, 200k, 500k a year and still be blue collar -- different types of jobs) I feel blacks have the same opportunity as anyone. And as anyone else have to prove it.

4. Black women, on the other hand, pretty much suffer more injustices than most groups. Hence why they are 'celebrated' and paraded in the media like Charity Cases.

Yeah whatever. Black women have two major things going FOR them.. they are women and they are black. [If you really believe that blacks have a hinderance in todays society strictly based off their race and for no other reason, like those that would affect anyone -- their criminal record, work history and demeanor etc. you will not understand what I'm saying]. I'm not saying everything black women are accomplishing is because of this. But I do feel them being women and being black gives them a big up so to speak, MUCH opportunity. Of course if they are lousy workers.. etc they wont get far.. for long (same as anyone). They get a damn good head start. And in general they are better workers/employees/employers than black men. They put forth more effort to succeed than black men. Hell man they know this. Talk to them. And I don't mean talk to some rich yuppy black man who is the exception and not the norm. Black women end up supporting black men a hell of a lot more than black men support black women. Not only not supporting .. not even helping or around period. ..

Anyway .. I'm pooped. I can't really speak bluntly here. And I also have a hard time getting my thoughts into words. Is why I'm glad when majority of the time what I post here doesn't get responded to lol.

..

Anyway .. I'm pooped. I can't really speak bluntly here. And I also have a hard time getting my thoughts into words. Is why I'm glad when majority of the time what I post here doesn't get responded to lol.

Since being black and a woman puts you on the lower end of the wage spectrum, I feel to see how being black and a woman is a benefit to them.

It just means that people can be sexist AND racist against them at the same time and it has Not worked out for them.

Show me the black woman who has gotten where she is because she is black and a woman. I bet you can't, because if they have gotten anywhere, it is not because, but in spite of. For I can show you many who are where they are (and it's no pretty place either) because they are discriminated against doubly so.

Here is a link to a video of a man in my opinion counter-protesting illegals as he was stopped in traffic due to others protesting. I am just trying to figure out why he was arrested and why some of the others around him were not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOe5uYFcXzY

that was one of the most racist videos I've ever seen.

I watched the whole video. I want my three minutes back.

Inflamitory trash. I should have known by the title, it alone is full of untruths, shouldn't have expected anything less from the video.

The word 'Illegals' is used to try to make this video something it's not. The scene is a lawfull organized demonstration in Seattle with all the required permits in place. The demonstration is about immigration rights but by no means are all the demonstrators illegals. I've been to such demonstrations, most of the people there are legal immigrants, legal residents and descendents of immigrants, illegals are a minority at such rallies.

I saw a man arrested by police. He appeared to resist that arrest and was injured. The video interestingly somehow seems to skip much of the incident, but my impression was that at least in part he was detained for refusing to obey the lawful commands of an officer. He was making an inciteful gesture and, at least initially, refused to desist when told to do so.

Sorry, I didn't see some patriot unjustly 'beat down by cops' for standing up to anything. I saw an asshole doing his best to provoke others get arrested for not obeying a police officer. Set it to music and show a bunch of patriotic images and it's still an asshole getting arrested for being... well, an asshole.

Well, that's it. America is officially ****ed. LIBERALS I TAKE IT WILL SUPPORT ME BIG ON THIS! They had no-right to do that to this man. If you disagree then you are the very evil you Liberals are trying to prevent.

Meh. Should the cops have cleared the protesters around him away, before making the arrest? Yes. Should they have prevented any damage to his car, if that damage actually happened? Yes.

Beyond that, he was stirring up violence, and that, as you may or may not know, is not protected speach. I wish that the cops hadn't injured him, but "beatdown" is a completely innacurate description of what occured.

Liberal doesn't mean ignorant of the way that the Supreme Court has ruled on the First Amendment in the past. It would have been better if the cops had told him to move, or merely to stop, but they were not outside their rights at all.

"Meh. Should the cops have cleared the protesters around him away, before making the arrest? Yes. Should they have prevented any damage to his car, if that damage actually happened? Yes.

Beyond that, he was stirring up violence, and that, as you may or may not know, is not protected speach. I wish that the cops hadn't injured him, but "beatdown" is a completely innacurate description of what occured.

Liberal doesn't mean ignorant of the way that the Supreme Court has ruled on the First Amendment in the past. It would have been better if the cops had told him to move, or merely to stop, but they were not outside their rights at all."---Kinda Sensible people

Stirring up violence? He did not threaten them in any way, he did not yell out anything trying to incite violence. He acted within his rights to freely show displeasure with the people in the street. The cops don't have special rights. They acted outside their authority, and in opposition to justice. Disgusting

Stirring up violence? He did not threaten them in any way, he did not yell out anything trying to incite violence. He acted within his rights to freely show displeasure with the people in the street. The cops don't have special rights. They acted outside their authority, and in opposition to justice. Disgusting

You're basing this on the video, yes? How do you know it shows everything that happened? We're still lacking in a source for all this, even one from a biased news site.

Meh. Should the cops have cleared the protesters around him away, before making the arrest? Yes. Should they have prevented any damage to his car, if that damage actually happened? Yes.

Beyond that, he was stirring up violence, and that, as you may or may not know, is not protected speach. I wish that the cops hadn't injured him, but "beatdown" is a completely innacurate description of what occured.

Liberal doesn't mean ignorant of the way that the Supreme Court has ruled on the First Amendment in the past. It would have been better if the cops had told him to move, or merely to stop, but they were not outside their rights at all.

If you look at the video, you will notice that the protestor who says " How's it feel now, bitch?" is being kept away from the arrest scene by a police officer. Considering there are only two officers on the scene, and one of them is sitting on the birdflipper, I think the other cop is doing the best job he can in a shitty situation. Though that one guy with the sign got right in there...

I do not think they would have an obligation to prtoect his property, though. Taking the idea to an absurd extreme, that would require that police protect the getaway car during a bank robbery. Though I would assume that the driver of the car could still pursue some sort of litigation against the 'Mexican' who broke his car window.

EDIT: Other than that I agree with you. When I looked at my post again, I was worried that it sounds snarky. Please do not take it as such.

Stirring up violence? He did not threaten them in any way, he did not yell out anything trying to incite violence. He acted within his rights to freely show displeasure with the people in the street. The cops don't have special rights. They acted outside their authority, and in opposition to justice. Disgusting

No offense, but you need to understand the interpretation of the First Ammendment before you spout off like this. The SCOTUS has always ruled that words or actions that could reasonably be expected to provoke or cause violence are not protected expression. Flipping off a crowd of protesters is A) Obscene, and therefore not protected and B) Pretty clearly contained within the fighting words exception as well.

If he'd been carrying a sign that said "Illegals Out, Now!" He would have been within his rights (assuming he had filed for a protest permit. Generally, it is a very bad idea to counter-protest without a permit. The cops want to be forewarned about counter-protests.), but he wasn't. His speech was not protected, and the police carried out their duty to protect the public safety by removing him.

If you look at the video, you will notice that the protestor who says " How's it feel now, bitch?" is being kept away from the arrest scene by a police officer. Considering there are only two officers on the scene, and one of them is sitting on the birdflipper, I think the other cop is doing the best job he can in a shitty situation. Though that one guy with the sign got right in there...actually, the protestor who shouted the bitch statement was being held back by someone else. there was a man infront of the camera trying to keep people back. nice to see someone helping the police instead of getting into their face.

I do not think they would have an obligation to prtoect his property, though. Taking the idea to an absurd extreme, that would require that police protect the getaway car during a bank robbery. Though I would assume that the driver of the car could still pursue some sort of litigation against the 'Mexican' who broke his car window.Criminal Property Damage is still a crime that the police are obligated to uphold. the car itself was not part of the crime. now had he driven forward (not just slipped off the brake) and ran those people down, then the car becomes a weapon and needs to be disabled.

EDIT: Other than that I agree with you. When I looked at my post again, I was worried that it sounds snarky. Please do not take it as such. no worries on my part. ;)

There are no "illegal" people.

if he was counter protesting at a major event, he's lucky all he get was a shit kicking and no its not unfair he was being a prick pure and simple


You don't get a beatdown simply for being a prick.

Nice try here at threadjacking. This thread is about someone getting arrested for flipping off others that are protesting. Doesn't really matter what the protest was about really.

If that is what the thread is about, why is this guy being painted as a fucking martyr for White America by the thread title, "gets beatdown for standing up to Illegals?"

This is OBVIOUSLY an illegal immigration issue. Yes, we can all argue that the guy was trying to start a riot. Yes, it doesn't really matter in the long run what the protest was about. But that won't change the fact that some people see this as the equivalent of Nationalist Jesus, being crucified by the Roman Police and betrayed by Jewish White Americans.

You don't get a beatdown simply for being a prick.

He didn't get a beatdown at all.

If that is what the thread is about, why is this guy being painted as a fucking martyr for White America by the thread title, "gets beatdown for standing up to Illegals?"

This is OBVIOUSLY an illegal immigration issue. Yes, we can all argue that the guy was trying to start a riot. Yes, it doesn't really matter in the long run what the protest was about. But that won't change the fact that some people see this as the equivalent of Nationalist Jesus, being crucified by the Roman Police and betrayed by Jewish White Americans.
because that was the title for the poorly constructed and hightly pointless youtube video.

other threads had titles that were also the title for other articles and videos.

actually, the protestor who shouted the bitch statement was being held back by someone else. there was a man infront of the camera trying to keep people back. nice to see someone helping the police instead of getting into their face.

Criminal Property Damage is still a crime that the police are obligated to uphold. the car itself was not part of the crime. now had he driven forward (not just slipped off the brake) and ran those people down, then the car becomes a weapon and needs to be disabled.

no worries on my part. ;)

I'll take your word for it about Mr. Bitch. I do not want to see that movie again just to decide who is right in this regard.

Since we do not know why the man was arrested, it is impossible to say that the car was or was not part of the crime. But without getting into legal theory, let's look at the practical aspects of the scene. Two police officers. One is busy busting a guy. The second is protecting the guy and the cop. If someone were to run up to the car, bash in a window and run away, who is going to chase down the culprit? I do not think it would be in anyone's best interests for the police to separate, or leave the man to fend for himself while the two cops chase the assailant.

Here is a link to a video of a man in my opinion counter-protesting illegals as he was stopped in traffic due to others protesting. I am just trying to figure out why he was arrested and why some of the others around him were not.

He was man handled and arrested because he was white and gave the middle finger to a bunch of illegal alien protesters.

You see illegal aliens have the right to block the street and respond with violence if they're given what they deem an inappropiate hand gesture.

He was man handled and arrested because he was white and gave the middle finger to a bunch of illegal alien protesters.

You see illegal aliens have the right to block the street and respond with violence if they're given what they deem an inappropiate hand gesture.

Actually, it appears he was manhandled because the police wanted to keep him from inciting a riot.

If you're a lone person and don't behave in front of the police, you get your trachea laced into a reef knot. If you're a big crowd, you're allowed a little more misbehavior, because you outnumber the police.

It doesn't matter what your skin color is. Police aren't fucking stupid. What, do you think they would love to get beat down by a large crowd?

I'll take your word for it about Mr. Bitch. I do not want to see that movie again just to decide who is right in this regard.

Since we do not know why the man was arrested, it is impossible to say that the car was or was not part of the crime. But without getting into legal theory, let's look at the practical aspects of the scene. Two police officers. One is busy busting a guy. The second is protecting the guy and the cop. If someone were to run up to the car, bash in a window and run away, who is going to chase down the culprit? I do not think it would be in anyone's best interests for the police to separate, or leave the man to fend for himself while the two cops chase the assailant.well, also, watching the video, the person who is implied to have broken the window could've been by accident. but because of the angle, you really can't see if that person did break the window.

which is why, IMHO, that video is really terrible proof of any wrong doing.

Actually, it appears he was manhandled because the police wanted to keep him from inciting a riot.

Yes those stupid brown people must not be able to control themselves.

If you're a lone person and don't behave in front of the police, you get your trachea laced into a reef knot. If you're a big crowd, you're allowed a little more misbehavior, because you outnumber the police.

Ahhhhhhh............mob rule.

So if this had been a lone homosexual giving the finger to the Phelps brigade and the police tossed him beating, that would be okay?

It doesn't matter what your skin color is. Police aren't fucking stupid. What, do you think they would love to get beat down by a large crowd?

The large crowd should be able to control themselves. If the police can't control them then obvioulsy more police, with better training are needed.

This man has a right to free expression.

Especially if he's forced to sit in traffic and watch others expressing themselves.

So if this had been a lone homosexual giving the finger to the Phelps brigade and the police tossed him beating, that would be okay?

Yes. There are some times when there are not enough police - are you magically able to summon the required number of police to just that spot on demand? Do you have a Star Trek transporter?

There is the law, and then there's common sense when you're dealing with crowds.

I wonder... if it was... say an Anti-Abortion parade or if it was an Same-Sex Marriage or Pro Bush/Iraq War and that person was doing the exact same thing and everything else in the video was the same (well, obviously the captions would be different...) quietly holding up his finger... would you all be posting the same thing?


:confused:

No. Then the thread would be Godwinned by the second post.

I'll take your word for it about Mr. Bitch. I do not want to see that movie again just to decide who is right in this regard.

Since we do not know why the man was arrested, it is impossible to say that the car was or was not part of the crime. But without getting into legal theory, let's look at the practical aspects of the scene. Two police officers. One is busy busting a guy. The second is protecting the guy and the cop. If someone were to run up to the car, bash in a window and run away, who is going to chase down the culprit? I do not think it would be in anyone's best interests for the police to separate, or leave the man to fend for himself while the two cops chase the assailant.

I doubt this protest was covered by two cops. Probably more like 50 or 100 and the people who bashed the car probably didn't run and even if they did they couldn't outrun a radio.

Just thinking back to other past threads...

like the no protest zone, which was to prevent violence...
the cops who tasered that college student that refused to leave the library...
and such. those threads demonized the cops within the first couple posts... yet here, where a cop arrests someone for quietly counterprotesting (well, according to a suspected to be highly edited video.) even to the point of pulling him out of his running car and forcing him to the ground to be arrested... and it's all that guy's fault.

well, they could've just told him to keep his arm down and then arrest him after he repeatedly flicks the parade off.

again tho. any idea when this happened? or if there is other sources than this video?

for all we were shown, maybe the guy wasn't quiet and was belligerent and actually deserved worse than what the police did.

EDITED: thanks Marrakech II

Indeed the case. Unlike in other cases, all we have is a poorly edited powerpoint type video, with out the full case. For all we know, the parade had a permit, and the guy tried to drive through the designated parade route, and decided to "stand up" to the police by driving through the barricades and such. Not saying this is the case, but truthfully, with that poorly edited piece of trash, I wouldn't necessarily doubt it.

Yes. There are some times when there are not enough police - are you magically able to summon the required number of police to just that spot on demand? Do you have a Star Trek transporter?

There is the law, and then there's common sense when you're dealing with crowds.

They obviously had to give the people protesting a permit.

They shouldn't be issuing a permit for a protest they can't keep safe and orderly.

You know, I just rewatched the video. Note the part where the guy's car lurches forward. Before that, everything is all nice and calm. After that, he's pulled from his car.

Hmmm... so, he starts driving forward(Although there is a car in the way), with police personal and thousands of people everywhere. Cops don't know what he's doing, pull him from his car.

Of course, that wasn't noticed, it seems.

You know, I just rewatched the video. Note the part where the guy's car lurches forward. Before that, everything is all nice and calm. After that, he's pulled from his car.

Hmmm... so, he starts driving forward(Although there is a car in the way), with police personal and thousands of people everywhere. Cops don't know what he's doing, pull him from his car.

Of course, that wasn't noticed, it seems.

The cops were pulling him from his car before the car started rolling. If his car was in gear then it would lurch forard as soon as they pulled his foot off the brake.

They obviously had to give the people protesting a permit.

They shouldn't be issuing a permit for a protest they can't keep safe and orderly.

You're saying that that protest wasn't kept safe and orderly?

You're telling me that free expression includes incitement of hatred?

You're telling me that free expression includes incitement of hatred?Actually, yes. Yes it does.

You don't get a beatdown simply for being a prick.

You might from other pricks.

You're saying that that protest wasn't kept safe and orderly?

Barely.

They almost let one middle finger turn the protest into a riot.

You're telling me that free expression includes incitement of hatred?

If you're asking me do I think freedom of speech includes the right to give someone the finger.

Then my answer is yes.

"A police officer is privileged to apply the threat of force, or if necessary to apply actual force, in order to effect a lawful arrest. A defendant who suffers injury as the result of reasonable force exerted by the police to effect a lawful arrest will not be able to sustain a lawsuit against the arresting officers for assault or battery."

What lawful arrest do they have here? What are the charges? Even if there was a court case they have no charges against them. If there isn't a court case then the police officers can be charged with assult and/or battery.

"Defense of others is similar to self-defense, and usually occurs in the context of one family member protecting another. Some jurisdictions permit a defendant to assert defense of others, even where the defendant is mistaken as to the existence of a threat, as long as the mistake is reasonable. Other jurisdictions do not permit this defense unless there was an actual threat or battery against the other person."

I doubt this could be a true account of defence. If the police couldn't handle the protesters in a riot then there shouldn't be any lawful protesting. There needs to be a strong and numerous police force in the incident of a riot of such a large crowd.

(All quotations can be found here: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html

I doubt this protest was covered by two cops. Probably more like 50 or 100 and the people who bashed the car probably didn't run and even if they did they couldn't outrun a radio.

I would be very surprised to find out that the two cops in the video were the only ones at the protest. However, according to the video, they are the only ones at he scene of the arrest, and the only ones capable of even noticing if the protestors did damage the driver's car. Any obligation for the police to act on such damage would have to start from these two men. Since they were otherwise occupied, and no other police officer was close enough, no action was taken. If the driver of the car had not been engaging the police officers at the time, the cops would probably have doen something about the alleged property damage.

To be honest, I doubt that the protestors even hurt the guy's car. You see one guy bump against it as he is walking by.

EDIT: The incitement to hatred is not protected by the right to free speech. Upthread there are numerous links and proofs that show this very clearly.

That thing is so cut up that it's hard to tell what happened in any reliable fashion. For all we're left with that guy could have pulled a knife on the cops between cuts, or the cops smashed the window to get at the guy. Am I saying that happened? No, I'm saying the thing is cut beyond any hope of knowing and that we have to take the guy who cut its word for what happened, and I have a hard time with that. I tend to believe that police are more aggressive than they need to be at times, but just because I believe that doesn't mean I'm going to leap to that conclusion on a bunch of poorly edited clips. I'm just not on that kind of hair trigger.

The incitement to hatred is not protected by the right to free speech. Upthread there are numerous links and proofs that show this very clearly.

Awesome.

I hate it when they say "We didn't cross the border, it crossed us."

In fact it incites great hatred in me.

I want those who say this phrase to be arrested and roughed up.

Especially during protests, it has a huge potential to get people all hatey.

That thing is so cut up that it's hard to tell what happened in any reliable fashion.

True.

That thing is so cut up that it's hard to tell what happened in any reliable fashion.

And for all the editing, it's still just so much self-important drivel. Idiot couldn't even be bothered checking his own text supers for typos. Woot.

I would be very surprised to find out that the two cops in the video were the only ones at the protest. However, according to the video, they are the only ones at he scene of the arrest, and the only ones capable of even noticing if the protestors did damage the driver's car. Any obligation for the police to act on such damage would have to start from these two men. Since they were otherwise occupied, and no other police officer was close enough, no action was taken. If the driver of the car had not been engaging the police officers at the time, the cops would probably have doen something about the alleged property damage.

To be honest, I doubt that the protestors even hurt the guy's car. You see one guy bump against it as he is walking by.

EDIT: The incitement to hatred is not protected by the right to free speech. Upthread there are numerous links and proofs that show this very clearly.
I seem to remember the Supreme Court of the United States protecting the right of the American Nazi Party to hold a march through almost completely Jewish Skokie Illinoise. The Freedom of Speech in the US absolutely DOES protect the right of someone to say they hate a group, it alows someone to be racist and express it, It allows hate in any form as long as it does not promote an immediate call to violence, i.e.... "hey everyone, let's go kill those Catholics!" That's illegal. So is grabbing a bullhorn and yelling to an angry crowd, "Burn tje building down! Burn it down! Burn it down." It is completely legal, though, for me to grab a bullhorn, stand on a soap box and yell, "Down with the Zionist conspiracy!" "The Jews are poisoning our children!"

Awesome.

I hate it when they say "We didn't cross the border, it crossed us."

In fact it incites great hatred in me.

I want those who say this phrase to be arrested and roughed up.

Especially during protests, it has a huge potential to get people all hatey.

There is a huge difference between questioning current immigration policy, and trying to get people so pissed off they hit someone. Since someone upthread already dealt with this in a much more eloquent manner, I will simply quote our feline friend:

Try reading Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=315&invol=568), 315 U.S. 568(1942). Particularly 315 U.S. at 571-72:

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 , 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352.

Since flipping the people the bird tends to piss people off but does not really help move political debate forward, you can see that the above case law would show that it is not protected by the US Constitution.

What!...thats so stupid, all thoughs protesters should be shot on the spot. That man was in the right, I am for him. All thoughs protesters need to be shot and killed.

And for all the editing, it's still just so much self-important drivel.

The music is the worst part.

I hate any news type item accompanied by music. Once you hear music you know right away something's up.

The music is the worst part.

I hate any news type item accompanied by music. Once you hear music you know right away something's up.

Even being generous that video can't be considered news.

ROFL that video is hilarious. The guy was inciting the mob he's just lucky he got out of there in one piece. What a retard.

There are no "illegal" people.
Strange, the term illegal immigrant would suggest to me that they are. :confused:

Strange, the term illegal immigrant would suggest to me that they are. :confused:

It is a term used by the stupid to fool themselves into dehumanising people based on an arbitrary line on a piece of paper.

Don't know the story just came to light today. I would assume that he couldn't be charged for a crime. However dumb he may have been he was within his right I believe. The police in my opinion from watching the video were the ones breaking the law.

Because you started this hornet's nest, it would be nice if you would find out more information about the incident.

Drawing conclusions from that rather dubious video is suspect. The video is highly edited, makes false and misleading suggestions, and (most critically) does not show that which we most need to see.

Very little of the interaction between the man and the police is shown to us. We can't tell what all he was told by police and what all he said/did in response.

Nothing in the video tells us why the man was pulled from his car. (The police don't need much reason for this, but still we are judging in ignorance)

Nothing in the video tells us why the man was arrested (assuming that he was).

Nothing in the video tells us what charges, if any, the man faced.

We don't know the surrounding circumstances of how the "victim" got where he was. WE can't be certain from the highly edited tape that we see what all occurred amongst the police, the "victim", and the protestors.

So we are left with the conjecture by some that the man was arrested because of his "counter-protest." When you consider the unknown factors described above it is a stretch to view the incident in this way. Moreover, even looked at in that light most favorable to the man, his flipping the bird at the protestors was an obscene guesture of little communicative merit and likely to cause violent backlash -- i.e., fighting words. Thus, even taking the video at face value an making inferences in the man's favor, his free speech rights were not necessarily violated.

I don't have the link anymore, but we used to have a thread where a woman who had been speeding talked back to the officer and did not immediately comply with the order to get out of her car. She was tasered. Twice. The usual suspects of NSG felt the woman got what she deserved for not doing what the officer told her to do. I'm not sure why the fact the man was allegedly "counter-protesting" an immigrantion rally somehow means he was treated unfairly even though he recieved much, much better treatment.

That thing is so cut up that it's hard to tell what happened in any reliable fashion. For all we're left with that guy could have pulled a knife on the cops between cuts, or the cops smashed the window to get at the guy. Am I saying that happened? No, I'm saying the thing is cut beyond any hope of knowing and that we have to take the guy who cut its word for what happened, and I have a hard time with that. I tend to believe that police are more aggressive than they need to be at times, but just because I believe that doesn't mean I'm going to leap to that conclusion on a bunch of poorly edited clips. I'm just not on that kind of hair trigger.


Just blame whitey..
I understand what you are saying.. but the media can feed whatever they want to the public and for that certain amount of time .. the reactions are just as they expected.

It is a term used by the stupid to fool themselves into dehumanising people based on an arbitrary line on a piece of paper.

You don't know what you say...you think you do... in a heart beat, anyone who is not of your ilk.. you damn them like niggers.

At least I'm Honest (http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/p3/stranger.html)

You don't know what you say...you think you do... in a heart beat, anyone who is not of your ilk.. you damn them like niggers.

At least I'm Honest (http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/p3/stranger.html)So you're honest... Don't expect a medal for it.

Kipling was a racist, but at least he had living in the 19th century and colonialist British upbringing as an excuse for his beliefs.

All you got is the handicap of living in north Carolina... It's an explanation... but still no excuse in this century.

Here is a link to a video of a man in my opinion counter-protesting illegals as he was stopped in traffic due to others protesting. I am just trying to figure out why he was arrested and why some of the others around him were not.
Funny. In NYC these racist douches get ample police protection and anti-fascist that even looks at 'em is liable to be dragged away to the Tombs. Fuck these assholes. And fuck the pigs too.Kipling was a racist, but at least he had living in the 19th century and colonialist British upbringing as an excuse for his beliefs.no fucking excuse. Some of his contemporaries had more sense. Kippie was a bright boy. He could have figured it out. Bloody good writer though.