Replies

It is absolutely within the rights of the venue to refuse armed State supervision over lawful public assembly and the concomitant intimidation of patrons and events.

I also disagree with the negative connotations you assign...after all why shouldn't officer Friendly attend a meeting on motorcycle safety and legislative issues, if that was really all that was going on?

The First Amendment is there for a reason.

The notion that free speech and public safety are mutually exclusive concepts is an anathema to a well ordered society. Police are present at all types of venues and events where free speech is exercised without infringement. Given the set of circumstances what harm would a couple of uniforms on the premises pose?

It is reasonable to assume that the restaurant management would have asked the COC representatives and been advised that allegations of threats were not serious, and that history did not support them.

I'll agree... and this may become a contentious legal issue for the Texas Confederation of Clubs as litigants have already begun to line up accusing the Twin Peaks venue of gross negligence in the death of their loved ones.

You can prevent nearly anything you want by filling venues with armed, uniformed agents of the State to supervise, control, bark orders, intimidate, arrest and kill.

I can't think of a single law abiding business owner who doesn't welcome the presence of uniformed police to his or her establishment. In fact many people including myself make a point of knowing where the police in their area like to frequent. Criminals do the same thing too, but for different reasons.

Yes, I'm aware that Twin Peaks was within it legal rights to refuse a legitimate police request to be present in their venue, although in hindsight it was an unwise and costly decision on their part. As businessmen, what were they thinking?

That's their business.

I also disagree with the negative connotations you assign...after all why shouldn't officer Friendly attend a meeting on motorcycle safety and legislative issues, if that was really all that was going on?

If that's all that was going on, why would Officer Friendly be needed? I would point out that Officer Friendly died in the ashes of Waco. Or in the woods of Idaho, take your pick. Certainly he wasn't present in Wisconsin during the John Doe investigations and raids that the state Supreme Court recently excoriated as "unsupported by law or reason".

I'd point out that "billy bad-ass" is an assigned negative connotation on your part, wouldn't you agree? Blacken kettles much?

The notion that free speech and public safety are mutually exclusive concepts is an anathema to a well ordered society. Police are present at all types of venues and events where free speech is exercised without infringement. Given the set of circumstances what harm would a couple of uniforms on the premises pose?

Free speech does not require supervision, which is why "First Amendment Zones" or literally putting ropes around journalists and herding them down the street is so disgusting and anathema to America's principles, freedoms, and to simple human rights and dignity.

I won't accept an America like that, and guess what. I will fight you for it, and so will millions of others.

I'll agree... and this may become a contentious legal issue for the Texas Confederation of Clubs as litigants have already begun to line up accusing the Twin Peaks venue of gross negligence in the death of their loved ones.

I am aware of that pending litigation but not the details. I would be surprised if there was an absence of any litigation, regardless of direction. We are a litigious society now.

I can't think of a single law abiding business owner who doesn't welcome the presence of uniformed police to his or her establishment. In fact many people including myself make a point of knowing where the police in their area like to frequent. Criminals do the same thing too, but for different reasons.

So do patriots. And for different reasons.