NYC Ferguson protesters arrested en route to Thanksgiving Day Parade

a reply to: Grovit

So, you're in favor of Constitutional rights being squeezed through bureaucratic rules and regulations?

Big government is the source of our rights to assemble and to free speech, NOT the Constitution?

When people stand up for what they believe in ... but don't have their parade permit in place ... do you also agree that they should be clubbed like baby seals for that offense?

I understand the issues at stake here just fine.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grovit

So, you're in favor of Constitutional rights being squeezed through bureaucratic rules and regulations?

do you also agree that they should be clubbed like baby seals for that offense?
did i say that?

im in favor of anything that prevents protestors from blocking the shoreway while i am trying to get home...

after the cleveland shooting protestors blocked it off and traffic was stalled for an hour...people were told to stay in their cars and wait...
their right to protest and be heard does not trump my right to drive home...

they can protest on the sidewalk
i cant drive my car home on the sidewalk

so there it is

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: scattergun

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: scattergun
As usual these FOOLS will demand to have their voice heard anyway possible. They are endangering themselves and others who want nothing of their agenda.

1). NYPD should just drag them off and jail them for Public Stupidity.
2). Club them down like Baby Harp Seals
3). Charge them for a Parade permit.
4). Ask them what happened to their Al Sharpton parade Balloon

I see you're in favor of a Totalitarian Police State then? Let's just forget the US Constitution?

Or does the Constitution just not apply to these folks? Are they not "real America" enough?

LOL, Yes I'm a supporter of the "Totalitarian Police State" as you call it when these FOOLS pull crap like this and disregard the Constitution.

Police officers need to keep the people safe. And yes when folks are committing criminal acts our laws will be enforced.

Right, so let's summarize your stated position here:

1. Totalitarianism and police state tactics are fine with you as long as they are directed at the right people.

2. Protests which depend on the Constitutional freedoms of speech and assembly are actually unconstitutional when exercised by the wrong people.

3. Opposition to government overreach, police state tactics, and the establishment of totalitarian interpretation of the law is only applicable when you agree politically with the espoused positions, but not when you disagree. Bring out the tear gas and dogs and water cannon if they aren't chanting the right rhetoric.

I see.

EDIT: Oh, forgot one

4. All protesters are really rioters destroying property and all rioters are equivalent to protesters exercising their civil rights.

Thank goodness you believe in truth, justice and the American Way!

/heave

LOL, Here's the deal bud...

1). Protesting and demonstrating are great!!! Until you endanger the public and their property.
2). Protesters aren't criminal until they break our laws.
3). Totalitarian Police Ta tics are approved and should definitely used to capture criminals
4). When are looters and opportunists going to learn to protest peacefully
5). I do believe in truth. And I have the right to voice it.
6). I enjoy when justice is served to those who violate our laws
7). A rioter burning a business is just a criminal, he has no cause but destruction.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: eisegesis

The difference is that the rioters and the protesters are not automatically the same people, as you and others here keep trying to suggest.

Why do you want to conflate the issue? Why not refer to the acts of rioters as separate from the acts of protesters?

Unless, you really do see them as the same thing ...

In this particular case, there is a fine line between rioters/protesters. You just can't have a group of peaceful protestors standing in the middle of a large scale riot and expect them to get preferential treatment. Does the surface temperature of a swimming pool tell you how cold the water is? No, but the water still moves as one. Does protesting in peace along side of barbarians make you a barbarian? No.

Speaking of "conflating", you seem to be doing the same. Stop grouping members into one side of the line or the other. Most are speaking out against specific acts of violence among the protests and you keep thinking I or others are speaking for all.

These protesters would have been a tumor growing on the parade. Do you think families came out to see Ferguson protestors? What about their right to peacefully assemble for the parade only to be disturbed and distracted by a Ferguson mob looking to put their hands on things?

If I had a big net that could scoop up everybody with good intentions of getting their voice heard I would. There voices and constitutional right to protest are being drowned out by those taking it to the next level, which is not constitutional.

Good thing they didnt torch the floats and loot all the candy.
Maybe they should have after all its in remembrance of st. Brown and all.

a reply to: eisegesis

So, let's be frank then and dispense with the facade ... "a fine line" between protesters and rioters means that, to you, there is no real difference. It's certainly okay to have that opinion, I just think one should be honest about it.

I think a group of citizens, wherever they find themselves, have full access to their Constitutional rights at all times. No, I do not believe in guilt by association, nor do I believe that your description of the protestors "standing in the middle of a large scale riot" is accurate to any degree.

I'm not sure you understand what the word conflating means, but I am hardly grouping anyone together, If you notice, I've mostly asked questions, the answers to which are not as appealing as the unthinking rhetoric that some wanted to post as fact here.

So Americans exercising their Constitutional rights are equivalent to a tumor, now? Only certain families have the right to participate in a public demonstration?

It's not up to any one of us to make decisions about whether others get to exercise their rights; bottom line.

URBAN LOOTERS have NO rights.

I'm not talking about peaceful demonstrators or Protesters here. They have EVERY RIGHT to evoke there rights.

PILLAGERS and those set on destruction are not protected by the Constitution and never have been.

Those are the people I'm upset with. Those who believe that only destruction can bring change. I would bet a paycheck that those caught on camera breaking in to that store to get booze and cigarettes have never even read the Constitution..

Thugs. Plain and simple. They are NOT worthy of any rights what so ever when engaging in criminal acts. These people are dangerous and need to be dealt with harshly until they grow up and realize how change is enacted..

Rioting just feeds the media. They get great ratings from fools tearing up stuff. We all lose in the end. So spin this however you want to as you will never change my view of justice.

If YOU want to use your "Constitutional rights" to loot and tear things up just go out and flip over a cop car and admit to it. Lets see how that works out for ya...lol

a reply to: Gryphon66

so what am i to do when i am trying to drive home and these protestors are blocking the road? im supposed to just sit and wait?
i have a right to travel correct?
do i have a right to mow them down since they are blocking my rights?

what a bunch of crap

a reply to: Gryphon66
So answer the question: do these protestors have the Constitutional RIGHT to riot, destroy property?

Please tell me how you find it justifiable.
Won't hold my breath on a rational answer.

do i have a right to mow them down since they are blocking my rights?

Using their understanding of rights, you would.

originally posted by: Grovit
a reply to: Gryphon66

so what am i to do when i am trying to drive home and these protestors are blocking the road? im supposed to just sit and wait?
i have a right to travel correct?
do i have a right to mow them down since they are blocking my rights?

what a bunch of crap

No, you got caught up in it. What happened to you was just BS. The wrong place at the wrong time. It would have pissed anyone off. However you were just a victim of someone else's poor and unlawful behavior. I'm glad you didn't run any of them down! You would have just been hurt or even killed.

Thats what I dislike about public stupidity... it effects us all. These people need to get a life and learn how it's done. They would get far more support from you if they didn't violate your rights right?

Just glad you made it safe.

originally posted by: HomerinNC
a reply to: Gryphon66
So answer the question: do these protestors have the Constitutional RIGHT to riot, destroy property?

Please tell me how you find it justifiable.
Won't hold my breath on a rational answer.

Go get him Homer! I would love to see a response, don't think it will matter though. Won't change my opinion. If you want me to understand any opposing side to this then I would suggest our friend actually read the document he states protects him and rioters...

I still don't see the point of protesting. I mean, the protesters are literally paying PD to come and beat them legally.
You go outside, freeze, scream and look stupid to a line of heavily armed police that you are paying via taxes to be out there...and then, the police move the line up and pull out the clubs and proceed to beat anyone in the way, and the person getting beat is literally paying for the beating. How does that make sense to people, considering protests to next to nothing regarding change???

a reply to: eisegesis

The cops just need to HOSE these people down.

If the protesters knew they would get hosed down when they showed up in anything other then peaceful they would not show up.

You create any kind of hardship for these clown's and the crap will stop .

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, let's be frank then and dispense with the facade ... "a fine line" between protesters and rioters means that, to you, there is no real difference. It's certainly okay to have that opinion, I just think one should be honest about it.

I said, "In this particular case". Your taking the context of my OP and applying it to all past riots, protests, and people. There is a huge difference between the two, that's what I keep trying to point out to you.

Peaceful protest = Constitutional
Destructive riots = Unconstitutional

Again, "in this particular case", they were allowed to protest peacefully. They became rioters after becoming aggressive while trying to push back police barricades. Whether they would have remained peaceful or not is the question.

I think a group of citizens, wherever they find themselves, have full access to their Constitutional rights at all times.

Agreed, until they become unconstitutional. That's where my tax dollars come in.

I'm not sure you understand what the word conflating means, but I am hardly grouping anyone together, If you notice, I've mostly asked questions, the answers to which are not as appealing as the unthinking rhetoric that some wanted to post as fact here.

Of course I understand what conflating means. Here's the definition incase you forgot. Here's a definition that even has the word "protest" in the example sentence.

con-flate
verb (used with object), conflated, conflating.
1.
to fuse into one entity; merge:
"to conflate dissenting voices into one protest."

It's my opinion that you think some members are after an old fashioned police beat down of innocent protesters exercising their constitutional rights. You are way off the mark. The people who we are speaking about are not staying within their right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

So Americans exercising their Constitutional rights are equivalent to a tumor, now? Only certain families have the right to participate in a public demonstration?

Are we playing a game of Twister here? I never said that. What I said was, "These protesters would have been a tumor growing on the parade." Why do you continue to take what I say and turn it into something it isn't?

I wasn't talking about Americans.
I wasn't talking about certain families.
I wasn't talking about those exercising their constitutional rights.

Stick to the topic!

We are talking about these "specific protesters" not following the constitutional guidelines describing a lawful assembly and protest. Don't you realize things aren't peaceful anymore when they start shoving officers around?

What rights were they exercising here?

originally posted by: roadgravel

do i have a right to mow them down since they are blocking my rights?

Using their understanding of rights, you would.

so true
i think gryphon knows exactly what he is doing. he/she seems like a smart person but i think they are just playing a game...twisting peoples words and running with it..
saying i dont mind if they get clubbed like seals.....excuse me, asking me

i never said that
oh the constitution....oh their rights...

their rights do not trump mine, or yours...

traffic was at a stand still for just a little over an hour cause they decided thats where they wanted to execute their right to protest.
thing is, people have a right to get home....
that situation right there could have blown up to nuclear proportions and that would have been their fault(in reality) but of course not to them...

that # is just asking for trouble...
people are nut just taking a casual drive home...people need to get where they are going. on the way to the hospital for this or that. on the way to pick their child up before the after school program closes...

what these protestors said, again, is # all those people. they dont matter. only we matter.

we feel this and feel that and we perceive this and perceive that so we are going to # on everyone else under the name of free speech or in the name of justice...

that is again, very thuggish behavior.

the cops were not out there busting their heads open to get them off the street. instead, other citizens that had no dog in that fight were made(forced) to sit in their cars and wait.....
roll up windows, lock doors and wait...
what kind of bs is that?

these actions are not making people sympathetic to their cause. what it is doing is pissing people off and confirming what a lot of people think about them already because thats what THEY are showing people.

theyre not going to win using these tactics....all they are going to do is pis people off. gonna piss of the cops. gonna piss of the other citizens that are forced into a situation. gonna piss off the business owners whose stores are being looted.....and it will come to a head and it will not end well for them....
everyone will suffer more because of their #.

how hard is it to show people that you really do want justice and peace by holding a lawful, peaceful protest?

get a permit to give your group and your voice public square for the day...why cant that happen?
that is a positive sign...blocking the highway is not

let me also tell you this. if you get a permit to protest in public square and you have a bull horn or a mic, people will here you weather they want to or not. there are thousands of people traveling through just that square every hour...
another positive to that is the cops would be there to stop people from messing with them....why?
the permit is there and they have the right to be there...so when some dick that dont agree with the message tries to ratchet up, he's gone.....

this is not hard at all. its just not how they want to do it.

the entire world watched what happened after that decision was read. i know there are people that are sympathetic to the cause but trust me, more people are not hip to it....

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: eisegesis

The difference is that the rioters and the protesters are not automatically the same people, as you and others here keep trying to suggest.

Why do you want to conflate the issue? Why not refer to the acts of rioters as separate from the acts of protesters?

Unless, you really do see them as the same thing ...

Re read the constitution and its stipulations. YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE THEY INFRINGE ON ANOTHERS RIGHTS.
Sure you have the right to protest,but others have the right t o not listen to it as well.
FOrcing your political views on someone is violating their rights. If you must do so you have to do it orderly,and not disrupt the peace. WHich means not blocking people from exercising their rights to personal happiness or them going about their day.

If you do you are no better than the people you are protesting and are being hypocritical.

a reply to: eisegesis

I was specifically only addressing the point you made, seemingly regarding the Ferguson situation, as there were no riots or looting or property destruction in NYC today.

If you were referring to all past "riots, protests and people" I must have missed it.

"Destructive riots = unconstitutional" ... well, actually it's more a violation of the common law concept of "disturbing the peace" and of course, the actual destruction and violence caused by rioting which I would assume is covered in State and local statutory law, not the US Constitution.

You want to make the rioting and the protests equivalent to each other, and I am (still) disagreeing with you.

Agreed, until they become unconstitutional. That's where my tax dollars come in.

How are "your tax dollars" related to the riots and looting? Are you a resident of Missouri?

And again, riots are not technically "unconstitutional" ... they are illegal. Muddying the two concepts is not helpful.

If you can't stand up to what you say, perhaps greater consideration should be given to what you say before you say it?

You compared the protesters to a tumor, I pointed it out to you in the form of a question because I couldn't believe, honestly that you made the comparison. Did you notice the question mark? That means I'm providing an opportunity for you to amend your remarks if they weren't what you meant to say, but obviously, since you're doubling down, you did mean that.

You don't feel like the people involved in the protest or the people attending the parade are Americans???

You weren't talking about "certain families" when you referenced their attendance at the parade (which is, like it or not, a public demonstration)???

Perhaps you should read what you're writing.

And in regard to your video, and putting words in someone else's mouth, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote where and when I have defended in any way shape form or fashion the rioters and looters.

Oh wait, you can't do that because I haven't.

Oh, and by the way, do you realize your OP is about protests in New York, right, not Ferguson? So if anyone is strictly off-topic, I believe that would be you, yourself. Was there looting by the six or so people who wanted to march today in New York? No? The hundred or so in front of the Library? No.

Reading is fundamental.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: eisegesis

The difference is that the rioters and the protesters are not automatically the same people, as you and others here keep trying to suggest.

Why do you want to conflate the issue? Why not refer to the acts of rioters as separate from the acts of protesters?

Unless, you really do see them as the same thing ...

Re read the constitution and its stipulations. YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE THEY INFRINGE ON ANOTHERS RIGHTS.
Sure you have the right to protest,but others have the right t o not listen to it as well.
FOrcing your political views on someone is violating their rights. If you must do so you have to do it orderly,and not disrupt the peace. WHich means not blocking people from exercising their rights to personal happiness or them going about their day.

If you do you are no better than the people you are protesting and are being hypocritical.

Can you quote the Article or the Amendment of the US Constution that states that "YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE THEY INFRINGE ON ANOTHERS RIGHTS."???

I believe you're confusing later case law and Supreme Court decisions with the actual, you know, Constitution.

Who has forced their political views on anyone else?

A handful of individuals staged a bit of "civil disobedience" in New York today, according to the OP. They didn't riot, they didn't loot, they didn't destroy anything. They broke off from another small group (100 or so) in front of the New York Public Library. How is that interfering with any parades or any one's trips to the library?

I need more to go on; what you're providing here makes no sense to me.