Skip to comments.(Marine) Ex-cop boots OWS heckler from congressman's swearing-in
Posted on 11/14/2011 3:44:15 AM PST by lowbridge
Meet New Yorks 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 hed been heckling US Rep. Bob Turner at the congressmans 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 ...
More pics at the link
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA......if onl1y MORE MEN would do that
taking out the trash
Marines are there when you need them.
Unless he dishonors himself, there is no such thing as an ex-Marine, as proved from case at hand.
These low life commy slugs can best be dealt with by we the people, the law sure won't do it, constitutional rights are for all Americans not just the commy libtards.
I cannot stop grinning!
Good Job Mr. Hiltunen!
Where did he get the authority to do that? I have no sympathy for the dragee but it sure looks like assault to me.
You must be a Lawyer.
First thing I thought was a lawsuit, I am sure the OWS dirtbag is seeing dollar signs.
Citizen arrest? Common decency?
Of course, it will not be a shock if charges are placed. We are all upside down. The children are ruling us.
Just logged in to say the same thing. I couldn’t tell from the article, but I was going to ask if anyone knew if the retired officer was performing a citizenz’ arrest (I thought it required 2 people), was part of private security (doesn’t sound like it), or someone who assaulted someone else because he didn’t like the fact that he spoke during the ceremony.
If the latter is the case, then I guess I wasn’t informed of when the right to assault someone was given when you don’t like what they’re saying or doing. Was this event private, or public? (I’d think public, since it was at a school). It’s a shame that our country celebrates a breakdown of the rule of law, with cheerleaders on both sides of the isle. Despite the gung-ho “Bring on the civil war” mentality, the situation is going to turn really nasty. The bad part about a society without a rule of law is that there is always someone, or a “group of someones” that can exert force or death over you. Always. And the U.S. doesn’t need to turn into Bosnia.
Great photo. Dirtbag got his beeber stuned!
“Of course, it will not be a shock if charges are placed.”
As well they should be. That’s why we live in a Republic with things like laws.
“We are all upside down.”
Yep, and for more than just the reasons you appear to be thinking of. The problem with ‘might makes right” is that eventually there is always someone with more “might.”
I love the New York Post. I hope that people in New York support it. It’s amazing to have such a newspaper in a place like New York of all places!
That’s exactly what I’m tallking about. Is this just another self appointed thug trying to prove his manhood. If he’s an ex NYC cop it increases the odds that he’s just another thug that needs to learn about the rule of law.
group of someones that can exert force”
Self-governance requires reasonable self-policing. Enforcing a reasonable community standard is indeed a local responsibility. The situation and the event at hand demanded some basic behavior. A man took out the trash. It didn’t rise to the level of needing to call the authorities.
Except that girlie men, like this one seems to be, that hide behind their government connections are leftists.
His name resembles Hitman. +1 Like.
Sorry, we’ll have to disagree. I don’t believe you have the right to assault someone because they disagree with you.
Here’s the first amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I realize that some people don’t think we should have one, but we do. It include a right to assemble, a right to speak, and a right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. While there are a lot of OWS goings on that are criminal, I want to know if speaking at a public meeting is one (a criminal act). Whether it is or not, we still have assault. And it’s still wrong. Defending YOUR person or property is one thing, physically attacking someone because you don’t like what they’re doing is another. This obviously isn’t the first case, sorry if you think assault is the appropriate way to get what they want. I don’t like leftists.
Answers can be found by reading the full article. The guy taking out the trash is a volunteer for the congressman’s campaign.
At this particular moment it appears he was acting as security.
If one goes into an event planning to start screaming and disrupting it, one should always be prepared for the invitation to leave.
I’m sure the whiner will consider legal action, as the article says he complained of a sore ankle. Poor dear.
The ‘might’ of the founders gave us this Republic. It will onlt be by the actions of those that love it that we keep it.
Roll over if you wish to.
I agree with you about the law.
Part of being a mature, responsible adult though, is knowing when and how to break it-an observation I am sure the Founders would endorse-and probably did as British subjects.
IMHO..the Marine acted responsibly.
This is the way you deal with commie scum, you dont wait around and listen to their drivel, just start kickin ass and takin names!! Should have been done from day 1 with this Occupy bullsh*t!!
When can we start dragging out the lawyers?
I believe, as I am sure many others do, that YOUR rights end where MY rights begin. People try to twist the bill of rights to suit their needs.
What about the people who wanted to listen to the swearing in ceremony? I am absolutely certain they were the majority there. So the bill of rights gives ONE individual the right to interfere with the rights of everyone else? Not hardly.
No matter how the bill of rights is interpreted others rights end where mine begin. I have the right to assemble peacefully - so if some butt head wants to make it non-peaceful then it is my right - no, my DUTY to enforce my own rights. If I want to listen to a speech and some butt head wants to make it so I can’t hear, then it is my DUTY to enforce my rights to listen.
Just like it is my right to protect my castle, it is my right and duty to protect myself from the unruly, the selfish, and those who believe their rights trump mine.
“Except that girlie men, like this one seems to be, that hide behind their government connections are leftists.”
While I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a “girlie man,” this certainly is a leftist practice. I find it sad that the Soros funded OWS people (Republican or not) have overshadowed the millions of people who have a legitimate concerns over what Republicans are calling “crony capitalism.” The fact is that Government is making shady deals behind our backs. And the Liberal elitists have succeeded in getting everyone who is upset at that to be labelled as “fringe” and as OWS “trash.” So the elitists have succeeded in getting the “right” to oppose anyone (in this case violently) who calls out the shady banker/government deals as OWS trash, while simultaneously getting the “leftists” to hate and have contempt (and in some cases, be violent) against the “right” who have the same concerns over “crony capitalism.” It’s the exact same thing, but the two groups will fight each other, because everyone has to be on a “team.”
Useful idiots are being played against each other, when in fact the problem IS socialism. But that’s to intense a topic for this simple back-patting thread.
I guess that there’s a reason “divide and conquer” is still around...it works so well.
Americans are not going to turn over their political activities and constitution to lefty OWS pigs like they have at Universities. They are not submitting the political system to these flaming useful idiot bullies either. (Twinkling my fingers.)
The Obama/Soros/Muslim “revolution” will not be a peaceful coup.
The radicals are going to use puppets to get violent and that is what Obama and the globalists want. This is their baby for toltaltarian “change.”
What an ignorant comment. The Founder fought so that they had the right to speak out, because they DIDN’T. If the man violated a law, then he needs to be convicted by a jury of his peers. It’s that simple.
“Part of being a mature, responsible adult though, is knowing when and how to break it-an observation I am sure the Founders would endorse-and probably did as British subjects.”
Agreed. Washington said that our constitutional form of Government could be useful for a moral people (to paraphrase). I have no problem with a citizens’ arrest, if the man is subsequently found guilty of breaking some law, in a court of law. If he’s found innocent, he should sue the socks off of the man who assaulted him (having thus been vindicated himself). The I believe the boundary you are referring to would be that citizens’ arrest. We are to police ourselves, which is why we still have citizens’ arrests. That’s why I asked if it was a citizens’ arrest (not mentioned in the article), that authority granted makes all the difference in the world (IMHO).
If you were part of security, how would YOU have handled the situation? If there were no security personnel present, how then would YOU have handled the disrupter?
Bogus argument. "This case" was not violent. The disruptor was physically removed from the venue, but he was not beaten up, stabbed, shot, bloodied, nicked, kicked or bruised. Though his sweatshirt was probably wrinkled.
I do find it interesting that you say that "in some cases" the left is violent, while you declare that this instance of the leftist being removed from the ceremony he tried to disrupt was an act of violence from the right.
I'm not buying what you are selling.
The problem with your argument, is that you didn’t present anything that said the protester wasn’t peaceful.
“Just like it is my right to protect my castle, it is my right and duty to protect myself from the unruly, the selfish, and those who believe their rights trump mine.”
Agreed. Now was this a private event on private property (”your” figurative “castle”), or a public event on public property (not “your castle). The swearing in of a public official at a school suggests the latter. The problem is that if people start condoning this, the LEFT (not you) will use it. Don’t think for an instant that if you say that speaking out of turn at a public event is grounds for assault, that the liberals won’t run with that. Obama is forming his civilian army, don’t forget it. When we let the rule of law break down, it ALWAYS turns out bad for everyone.
Talk about a bogus argument. The article specifally says that rather than ask the man to stop speaking, or to leave, that as soon as the protester spoke, he grabbed him and dragged him out.
I’m not buying what you’re selling, either. Our country is founded upon the rule of law, not the discretion of violent individuals.
The word “security” doesn’t appear in the article. Let me know where it’s reported (link please), stating that this man was “security,” where the event was private, conducted on private property, and I’ll be glad to answer. Otherwise, it’s irrelevant to ask how I would respond to a situation that didn’t exist.
Under the authority of common sense and common decency.
When children act out the adults must become corrective.
The article reports that he was not security but rather a supporter.....In other words, his right to enjoy the ceremony without disruption was being infringed upon so he took it upon himself to remove the disrupter......
Now, what would YOU have done?
How should have the disrupter been dealt with or should he have been allowed to remain and continue his disruption?
Agreed. that is the exact problem. Some “conservatives” don’t care about the Constitution or the Rule of Law they are supposedly “conserving.” If the situation was the one you presented, there would be chanted of “why I concealed carry,” “no body would lay a finger on me,” etc. etc. While I understand the hypocrisy (human nature), I still find it sad when I see it. I suppose people are tired of the way that their rights are trampled (I am, too), but some people rather than restore the balance and promote the rule of law, they want the shoe to be on the other foot so that they can in turn, trample the rights of others (two wrongs make a right, mentality). The problem is that that pendulum swings BOTH ways, and the shoe will always eventually be on the other foot.
“Marines are there when you need them.”
I agree. And you can tell which posters here you can count on when the SHTF and which ones will be whimpering and hiding in the closets.
Was this a private event on private property? I already asked that.
It doesn't matter......How would YOU have dealt with the disruptor?
Sorry, well have to disagree. I dont believe you have the right to assault someone because they disagree with you.
Heres the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Well the good citizen was not the Congress. Just a good decent citizen showing an assclown that there is a place and time for everything and that he had picked the wrong place and wrong time.
From the article:
Holding a sign that read, Rep. Turner [heart] the 1%, Weissman remained seated and quiet until Turner, who was there with his wife, Peggy, took the stage about 1:30 p.m. and began to speak.
He was close by to where I was standing, and he started yelling something about Bob Turner, ...So I grabbed him by his sweat shirt and escorted him out. I just had to do what was right. I was just here to witness this historic occasion.
The guy did nothing to the OWS guy as long as he sat quietly holding his sign. When the OWS guy started yelling, disrupting the event, is when the the man stepped up and restored order to the event.
No blood involved. No fisticuffs. Heck, it doesn't even look like the protester's hair is mussed. Now, I gotta go to work....
Not necessarily, but Distrubance of a Public Meeting certainly is. The event was a swearing-in ceremony, not a county council meeting.
Whether it is or not, we still have assault. And its still wrong. Defending YOUR person or property is one thing, physically attacking someone because you dont like what theyre doing is another.
Distrubance of a Public Meeting
"Disturbance of a public meeting refers to the unlawful interference with the proceedings of a public assembly. Generally, any conduct that is contrary to the usages of a particular sort of meeting and class of persons assembled interferes with its due progress and services, or anything that is annoying to the congregation, is a disturbance. A meeting shall be disturbed when it is agitated, aroused from a state of repose, interrupted, or diverted from the object of the assembly"