Posted on 09/02/2010 7:55:00 PM PDT by 2nd amendment mama
>> And I wouldn’t presume the cop was in the right just because he’s a cop with a badge and a gun. Whoop-de-doo. <<
No, the badge and the gun just mean that it would be extraordinarily stupid to try to jump in the fracas, since you could easily end up doing a very long jail sentence.
>> I don’t care what the guy said before the cop attacked him because he was provoked by them even getting in his face to begin with. <<
The first security guard was hardly in his face. He had spoken quietly, and from a distance, and did not response to the shouting.
>> The cop should have backed the security guard off of him, not jumped in and escalated the situation. <<
Due to the convenient editing of the film, we don’t know who escalated the situation. If the man did not threaten anyone, or try to instigate a fight, the edited portion of the film would plainly be exculpatory evidence, which makes you wonder why it was edited out, doesn’t it?
>> We probably have a case of off-duty LE moonlighting as security and working with or knowing the trooper. <<
It certainly does appear that way.
>> Security had no business bugging him in the first place. They fired him up. <<
Yeah, that’s right. He wasn’t responsible for his own actions, because security plainly drove him insane by asking him for a permit.
Are you saying that a Lyndon Larouche supporter was a nutbag? I’m not sure I can process this. /sarcasm
Say what you want about LaRouche people. Had it been an “Impeach Bush” sign, he probably would have been given a lawn chair and an umbrella.
Excellent comparison!
The case that brought about the SCOTUS decision involved a shopping mall, not a theater.
A local ordinance is not the same thing as a term of entrance to private property open to the public - apples and oranges.
I assume you're talking about the PruneYard Shopping Ctr decision. Note that it doesn't demand a state act foolishly like California--it just said that California could be nuts. Many states have come out and clarified that they will respect property rights.
Secondly, many of the reasoning points behind that decision do not apply here.
IOW, the SCOTUS decision is irrelevant here, confirming that the shopping center example is spurious.
IANAL.
“In New Hampshire, in the Towns anyway, get 10 signatures on a petition and put it on the Town Warrant, fire the cops or cut their budget.”
Wow. How is it otherwise?
“Not on private property, it isn’t. Get on my porch with a larouche-sign, and you’ll earn a lesson in rock-salt ;).”
Your house is your house. A fair is a public—or at least a quasi-public—function. I well remember that the dims and pubbies set up tents for Kennedy and Nixon at the Oklahoma State Fair.
Too often we forget that “What is right is not derived from the rule, but the rule arises from our knowledge of what is right.” (Julius Paulus)
Given the centrality of the concept of free political speech to our Republic, I don’t think it’s reasonable or right to deny a person entry to a state fair on the grounds that he intends to engage in political speech.
And if you do deny him entry, and he begins to fume and shout, well, that’s not a big deal either. Or at least it shouldn’t be. A cop who can’t handle that without acting like he’s captured John Dillinger ain’t much of a cop.
Honestly there is a bit of a quandry when something like this happens to anyone...Putting the whole story together, the evidence is almost overwhelming against the LaRouche douchbag...
Watching the people come to his aid, not knowing the full story behind this fringe group, is very telling as well...
This was staged by them, and the security fell right into the trap...
Now...Lets throw this out there...If someone had gonw out there and had a little mini-TEA party rally...With no signage or clothes to indicate their unstated affiliation, would the security folks have acted the same way???
I think they would have, and you’d have seen this website, and a few other media sources come unglued and ready to storm the Bastille if that had been the case...
It would be an interesting twist to the plot to speculate on...
Who or what is the owner?
I’m sorry, but I can’t do remote technical support and show you how to click the link I gave, nor read to you.
And I’ll need a retainer if you want me to research the actual owner from public property records.
I missed your link. What post is it in?
John Kerry as he was being interviewed by Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO show Real Time . Starting at about one minute into the clip Kerry says what can only be interpreted as a threat to kill Bush:
Maher : You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone. Kerry : Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone .
and he is held captive until Palmer police arrive to escort the man away in cuffs.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the police or military to uphold their oath to defend the Constitution.
Lol!
Several.
But here...a few freebies to get you started...
http://dnr.alaska.gov/ssd/recoff/sag/DocDisplay.cfm?SelectedDoc=20100045060&District=311
http://dnr.alaska.gov/ssd/recoff/sag/NameSearch.cfm
https://myalaska.state.ak.us/business/soskb/Corp.asp?238422
http://www.alaskastatefair.org/aboutus/media/pressrelease/2010/090210.html
Enjoy!
You're claiming that A.S. 12.25.010 and/or AS 12.25.030 is unconstitutional?
Or you think the Constitution protects people who enter private property and disrupt a show?
Or what?!?
Sanity bump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.