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 ...
"Bob Turner has sold out Queens and Brooklyn voters by voting for the [South] Korea, Colombia and Panama free-trade agreements which will outsource 219,000 U.S. jobs to sweatshops,"
That may be a sentiment that his harmful economically, but it is certainly not Marxist, anti-American drivel.
Man, ya just gotta smile when you see that photo! A manly man TCB; I love it!
(You’ve got to wonder what kind of parents raised this kind of OWS trash. I remember when parents’ goals for their kids was to become productive members of society. The olden days, I guess.)
That is a well reasoned post, thank you, for providing that legal definition. Now, what is the law in New York concerning that matter. The article mentions no arrest (citizens’ or otherwise) of the protester for a crime, was he later charged?
You are advocating “the heckler’s veto,” which effectively DENIES the free speech of those who were trying to speak before the heckler took over.
“The heckler’s veto” has never been held to be a 1st Amd right.
Well, if your questional is vague, then so will my answer be. Constitutionally/legally.
Anyone else notice how much like the Westboro Baptist Church bunch these OWSers look?
how is the exmarine on disability? he has possibly dishonored himself with retirement fraud
the problem is he’s an excop because of a disability. so he gets paid to not work but is able to throw out a heckler. retirement fraud. he can’t work behind a desk? what’s his disability? it takes 20 yrs to retire. why couldn’t he work the last 5?
How do you heckle someone at a public meeting on public property? Or was this a private meeting on private property, or a private meeting on public property? Or is there a specific law in New York that prohibits protesting at public meetings? I specifically asked that, and have repeatedly stated that if the protester broke a law, that the situation is different, in that I would agree with a citizen’s arrest.
I have never heard of a “Heckler” except in a private meeting, and usually on private property, or where the “heckling” (specific activity) was a criminal behavior (ie. at a public meeting with a permit, warranting “disruption of a public meeting” etc.) The details make or break the argument of whether or not one or both of these men should be criminally liable for their actions.
You know what, he’s not a cop. Let the scumbag file a police complaint for assualt and let’s see what a jury of this man’s peers says about it.
I am sick and tired of everyone walking on eggshells around disruptive filth who BANK on decent people being cowards in order to abuse us on an almost daily basis.
My only regret in this story is that the Marine did not stomp a size 11 mudhole into this filthy punk’s chest.
Oh, swell, we just hear from one of the two bleeding heart liberals in Oklahoma!
And you know that you cant possibly argue that he has the right to remain in that room while violating everyone elses right to observe the ceremony in peace ..
And if you think you can support that protestor then you obviously stand in support of the Code Pink protestors who attempted to disrupt Sarah Palins V.P. nomination speech by rushing the stage in Minnesota back in 2008 ..
His freedom of speech ended at that time when he was trampling the freedoms of the others present.
I’d have held the door open for the Marine. Then I’d have sworn up and down the OWS idiot said something about needing fresh air before passing out and becoming incoherent. The Marine was just helping him outside so he could recover...
Sometimes a man is “the authority”. A man does not call his wife, lawyer, HR Department or anyone else for authorization to do the right thing.
He didn’t ask permission. He just took it. Take it up with the authorities and file a complaint. OWS didn’t ask for permission. They just took it.
The knee jerk, automatic appeal to an external authority for the adjudication of a civil conduct issue is the hallmark of an immature, emotionally and intellectually stunted and dependent populace.
Grown ups self-police and self-regulate their communities. A man in full, and a community of such, has little to no need of the state in their lives.
You’ve been well governmentally educated grasshopper.
Hang around here a while longer and you might get your eyes opened.
You seem completely oblivious to the intent here.
Weismann showed up specifically to disrupt a lawful event, as evidenced by his prepared sign. He was left alone as long as he was quiet and respectful.
But when he started actively disrupting the event with his yelling, he was engaged in unlawful activity, as shown by the definition shown in a previous post.
His “right” to disrupt does NOT trump the rights of everyone else. His actions were, in fact, illegal.
And a nearby Marine “sorted him out”.
Actually, the poster gave a generalized description of a legal term, which does not necessarilly represent the Law in New York, though I asked if New York as that law, and if it applies in this situation. No answer yet.
“His actions were, in fact, illegal.”
What was the law? Was he criminally charged, and, if so, who arrested him?
OK, if you say so. The FACT is, our Republic is being stolen away from us a bit at a time, by the very ilk of creature that man hauled out of that inauguration. It has been said the Constitution is not a suicide pact. The freedoms it enshrines are being used against us and we are lying down for it.
“The knee jerk, automatic appeal to an external authority for the adjudication of a civil conduct”
Let me know where that came from, or is it wishful thinking?
“The freedoms it enshrines are being used against us and we are lying down for it.”
Thankfully, assault isn’t one of those freedoms, but some people think it is.
Love it! What a great picture.
New York Penal - Article 240 - § 240.20 Disorderly Conduct§ 240.20 Disorderly conduct. A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof: 1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or 2. He makes unreasonable noise; or 3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or 4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or 5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or 6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or 7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose. Disorderly conduct is a violation.Section: Previous Article 240 240.00 240.05 240.06 240.08 240.10 240.15 240.20 240.21 240.25 240.26 240.30 240.31 240.32 240.35 Next
Last modified: April 24, 2010
The protester was engaged in criminal conduct. It is not likely that he would get very far in any kind of civil tort action.
That pix is going to be iconic.
Are you saying Weismann’s actions were totally acceptable? And there has to be a specific written statute in force in a specific locality before anyone is justified in taking corrective, restorative action?
Illegal acts are rarely followed by actual arrest, unfortunately. Which is what the left depends on.
I, sir, do not wish to be ruled by the warped interpretation of Constitutional rights by those who would trample the rights of everyone except themselves. You can do as you wish.
I agree with you.
I cannot believe the amount of people in here who feel that we should just allow punks to come into places and disrupt speakers without making our own feelings known.
When America gets to a point where people cannot have a meeting without disruption the turds are winning.
If this clown wanted to speak he should find his own forum.
Lawyers and people who bait others to get a response that can be prosecuted are pussifying our country.
Real Americans are getting sick of this BS.
Dragging a disruptor out of a ceremony is hardly assault. Perhaps the disruptor should have been allowed to just ‘do his thing’ ad nauseum’.
Oh, I know, the police, yeah thats it, call them. So they can stand and watch that person ‘exercise his rights’ to speak out against Gov’t.
Again can anyone answer how the ex-cop is on disability? Seems to be 2 problems here. The protestor and the disability fraudster
The people whose rights were being violated were the ones whose ceremony was being ruined by the heckler.
Wonder if you'd say the same thing about assault if it the heckler broke into a ceremony for a black official and started shouting racial slurs.
Thanks Diamond, for clearing that up. I appreciate the time and effort you gave to clear that up for me. That would then shift the discussion to how that situation was then remedied (which I would then agree with a citizens’ arrest). I find it odd that he wasn’t charged, considering that the police were already on scene (as seen in one of the “draggin” photos at the link). Thanks again, I do appreciate your time and research.
The middle picture is a hoot. The officer seems to be on a scattered run for cover. I don’t believe the authorities would have taken any action to have stopped the dragee. That is how all these people have ended up in parks. They didn’t ask permission. They just moved in and the authorities are walking on eggshells.
“Are you saying Weismanns actions were totally acceptable?”
Nope, I actually asked for more details of the event and applicable laws. Diamond provided the applicable law somewhere around #80 or so.
“Illegal acts are rarely followed by actual arrest, unfortunately. Which is what the left depends on.”
Maybe, but police were already on scene, and thus could have dealt with the matter, in addition to a citizens’ arrest if properly performed. So I have to wonder, why no arrest was made.
“I, sir, do not wish to be ruled by the warped interpretation of Constitutional rights by those who would trample the rights of everyone except themselves.”
Well said mo.
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.
Back in 1776, John Rutledge and the Committee of Safety in Charleston, South Carolina, completely ignored “the Rule of Law” and forcefully removed the English governor of South Carolina, who was lawfully appointed by King George III.
Back then, some people understood freedom and the actions necessary to secure it. And others supported the king’s rule of law. They were called Tories and traitors.
Even if it’s a public event on public property, do people have the right to disrupt, not necessarily protest, a legally-held public event? I would say no, they don’t. If people want to protest by holding signs outside the ceremony or speaking to other protesters, they have that right. No one has the right to disrupt a legally held ceremony. If I went to Obama’s inauguration and started banging on things and shouting and screaming with the specific intent to disrupt the swearing in, I should expect to either be arrested or thrown out by the scruff of my neck. Weissman had the right to protest the ceremony, but only so far as to not interfere with it. He did not have the right to disrupt it.
I love the caption “Occupy sidewalk.”
This whole thread has gotten unbelievable.
A Marine removes an idiot who had CLEARLY planned to disrupt a legal gathering, and we’ve got people here who are demanding to know if this action was justified by statute. Common sense, apparently, isn’t good enough.
And once someone else has gone to the trouble of citing the specific New York statute concerning this illegality, then he wants to “shift the discussion” as to why there was no arrest. Why not man up and just apologize for jerking everyone around?
And now we have one poster who has already tarred said Marine with the accusation of a false disability, without knowing any of the facts.
That’s it for me. It’s gotten way too absurd.
Do you know his disability? How does dragging out a loser mean he isn't disabled?
Good, because you weren’t paying attention, anyway. You merely decided to try and put words in my mouth, and it didn’t work. I said all the way, way, way back in the thread, responding to the “under what authority” question, that I wanted to know if it was a citizens’ arrest (and subsequently that that would make a difference regarding the scenario, along with whether the man violate a criminal law). Given the further information, the scenario would now be different if it was a citizens’ arrest. 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 don’t owe anyone an apology, and I assure you none is forthcoming.
From my first post on the thread:
“Just logged in to say the same thing [re: by what authority]. I couldnt tell from the article, but I was going to ask if anyone knew if the retired officer was performing a citizen[s] arrest (I thought it required 2 people), was part of private security (doesnt sound like it), or someone who assaulted someone else because he didnt like the fact that he spoke during the ceremony.”
Why would it matter if it was a public or private event? If the butt head is standing next to me and shouting so I can’t hear the ceremony then he is interfering with my rights to listen. No matter whether he touches me or not the volume of his voice is assaulting my ears - just like loud motorcycle pipes are outlawed in some places, loud, obnoxious people have no right to assault my hearing. They become assaultive when they refuse to shut up so I can hear.
And for way too long we have stood quietly and permitted butt heads to bring about this kind of crap. The majority DOES rule and we have let the minority dictate what is acceptable for too long. I have the right to listen and the right to ask that the offensive person leave - I am there for the purpose of listening. If the offender does not leave then do we just disband the entire affair so they can have their “free speech rights” or does the majority take a stand and remove him from our presence?
I go with removal of the offender every time.
And you are not to stop protesters from entering anywhere you are and disrupting you.
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.