Posted on 11/14/2011 3:44:15 AM PST by lowbridge
Meet New York’s newest hero.
Kevin Hiltunen, a former NYPD officer, yesterday grabbed an Occupy Wall Street demonstrator by the collar and dragged him out of a Queens school where he’d been heckling US Rep. Bob Turner at the congressman’s swearing-in ceremony.
“I guess you could say I sorted him out,” said Hiltunen, 48, his jacket and tie barely mussed after dragging the scruffy protester out on his rear end.
“All I was doing was trying to stop this historic occasion from being disrupt-ed. There is a time and place to exercise your First Amendment rights,’’ said Hiltunen, of Bergen Beach, Brooklyn, who was identified by people at the ceremony as an ex-Marine.
“This was not the time or the venue,” Hiltunen added.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Sure retread.
If only Mayor Bloomberg would grow a pair of coglioni and kick these creeps out of Zuccotti Park!
HEAR, HEAR!!!
My only regret is that the marine did not have a taser!
You are right - and I think the other guy is a troll. You cannot disrupt a meeting - public or otherwise. There are nuisance laws against this.
That was an intelligent reply.
You get your law degree from a box of Cracker Jack?
but it sure looks like assault to me.
Do some research into the difference between assault and battery.
“Good, because you weren’t paying attention, anyway...So, if your attention span is too fleeting to pay attention, I’m overwhelmed with joy at the prospect of you not addressing me anymore.”
I just love it when the insults and sarcasm starts. Some may think it’s a sign of superior intellect or cleverness, but more often than not it’s a great insight into those who engage in such tactics. So, I apologize in advance that your “joy” will be short lived.
I was going to just let this thread go by, but I’m curious. Why are you so wrapped around the axle by the legality of the direct action of a retired LEO / Marine who did everyone a favor by personally removing an obvious nuisance who wanted confrontation?
You have failed to address the INTENT of someone who’s sole purpose in attending was disruption. In any sort of following litigation, this would be a key factor. Why continue to ignore it?
You argued that it wasn’t clear that such boorish action was, in fact, illegal. When someone else here made the effort to do the research and confirm that it was, you wanted to “shift the discussion” away from this point you so vociferously championed. Wouldn’t it have been easier to do the research yourself first and not waste everyone’s time on speculation?
Your initial query ended with “...or someone who assaulted someone else because he didn’t like the fact that he spoke during the ceremony.” Again, you seem bound and determined to mis-characterize Mr. Weismann’s sole purpose of being there in the first place - he wanted to ruin the event for everyone else with his extreme disruption. This is hardly the same thing as submitting a comment for consideration in a public meeting. Can’t you see the difference?
This idiot CLEARLY needed direct and immediate intervention. I’m thankful that someone was there who had the cajones to do it. Better that than letting this clown hijack a lawful assembly. And I really don’t understand the purpose of questioning the act of someone who, by all reports, deserves our admiration and respect.
So why noodle this to death?
I say it was a clear-cut case of self-defense. The Marine, being a gentleman, just wanted to take it outside and settle it.
Goodness. That punk wasn’t even half his size.
Good Lord, that picture is ripe for a photo shop.
Let’s put Obama’s face or any Dem face on that protestor.
Obama, Reid, Pelosi,Schumer,Schultz,—we could have a field day.
Taking Out the Trash—2012.
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.