It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alabama man arrested for slashing baby Trump Balloon .

page: 42
36
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence




While large scale coordinated protests generally require a permit, one can stand on a public sidewalk and hold a balloon or sign without a permit, and it is entirely within one's rights.


The balloon could be found near the corner of Hackberry Lane and 15th Street.




posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage


Not quite, he went to the stadium with the intent to destroy someone else's property and "get rowdy".

The protesters looked like they were behaving themselves vocally, but peacefully, and not vandalizing anything.

True, he went with the intent to destroy property. I accept that and have stated multiple times that it is illegal. He was arrested. I have no issue with that either.

However, the protestors were demonstrating an intent to to disturb the peace, which is also illegal. The sole purpose of that balloon is to incite anger and disgust, in a venue which has already warned about such protests. Ironically, it has been compared to a MAGA cap, which is an expression of support and worn as a personal statement instead of in an attempt to incite anger.


Also, I'm not sure if it's the same in AL, but where I'm at, "fixin' ta get rowdy" is another way to say "getting into fist fights".

It indicates an intent to become physical, yes, although not necessarily to engage in "fist-fights." The same phrase has been used to indicate an intent to do stupendously dumb things, usually when drunk. I have already admitted my error in assuming he was simply there to attend the game.


I think the intent of chanting and floating a balloon, is a little different than the intent of assault and vandalism.

There was no assault, only vandalism.

I do not see a huge difference. Both Hutchinson and the protestors were there with the express intent to disrupt the peace. Hutchinson chose an overtly illegal act, but the protestors were also acting illegally by protesting. They have no right to do so in order to intrude on a privately-held event. There is little difference in my opinion between acting violent and promoting violence, aka inciting a riot, and the balloon was certainly there to incite.

This is where I have a problem with this right to protest I keep hearing about. I have heard it defined as the intersection of the right to assemble and the right to demand a redress of grievances from the government. However, this protest was not demanding a redress of grievances. It did not specify a specific grievance and was aimed at one lone government official but also at hundreds of thousands of non-government citizens. That is not how one demands a redress of grievances; it is how one makes an ass of themselves.

There is no right to make an ass of oneself enumerated in the US Constitution.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Liquesence




While large scale coordinated protests generally require a permit, one can stand on a public sidewalk and hold a balloon or sign without a permit, and it is entirely within one's rights.


The balloon could be found near the corner of Hackberry Lane and 15th Street.


As I quoted.

Here.

Directly above your post.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


I do not see a huge difference. Both Hutchinson and the protestors were there with the express intent to disrupt the peace.


Huge difference:

One is a peaceful protest against the president of the Unites States, which is protected.

The other is destruction of private property, which is not.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Yeah, I missed that.

A little more digging and the ballon was at Monish Park so the permit makes perfect sense.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Liquesence

Yeah, I missed that.

A little more digging and the ballon was at Monish Park so the permit makes perfect sense.


Link?

I haven't seen anything about a permit, from what I can find.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah, I know there was no assault. We were just discussing the notion of their intent.

Disturbing the peace is definitely illegal, but like I said, usually protests are given quite a bit of leeway by law enforcement as long as the protesters remain civil. Since they were not shut down I'm left to think that the group did remain civil, or I'm sure we would have seen something about the protesters themselves being cleared out with tear gas, or hauled off in cuffs like Hoyt.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



but the protestors were also acting illegally by protesting. They have no right to do so in order to intrude on a privately-held event


Wrong.

Unless you claim they intruded on a private event from a mile away on public property.

Perfectly legal to demonstrate on public property and they even had a permit to do so.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
Public universities are not private property; however, some do have "free speech zones."


That was my impression, but wasn't sure if something in AL differed from my understanding.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The sole purpose of that balloon is to incite anger and disgust, in a venue which has already warned about such protests.


Didn't this occur on a street corner and not on the campus?



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Hoyt called into a radio show to tell people what motivated him .


"I see this stuff going on out west and up north and all other places. I get so mad about people not taking a stand. The left wants to use religion against you like you shouldn’t act like this and stuff but I’ll tell you this - the Devil knows the Bible as good as we do.”

This was your turning of the temple tables?” Burgess asked in reference to the Biblical story of Jesus turning over the tables of the money changers in the temple.

“Yes,” Hutchinson replied. “It comes a point when you gotta take a stand. We don’t have two parties anymore. We have good vs. evil. When you got one party that says it’s OK to kill babies and by the way, this is the first time I’m ever seen a liberal get mad about chopping up a baby.”


A Religious guy standing up for murdered babies.

That bastard has no justification for stabbing a balloon . Silence him now !

I support Hoyt’s position
edit on 13-11-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Here is a video of the actual protest. I am having a hard time finding where they are disturbing the peace.

If they were I would think the police standing by it would have done something.

Link



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Also, the First Amendment applies to Congress making laws, not to people expressing themselves.


Sort of. "Freedom of speech", and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" are certainly forms of expression that are covered by the first amendment, but certainly not everything that could be considered "expression" is covered.

It clearly states 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble', the freedom of speech, and the fact that congress is not allowed to create any law that would infringe upon those rights.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown



A Religious guy standing up for murdered babies.


By stabbing a Baby trump balloon.

#Irony.

Yeah, destroying private property totally furthers his "cause."



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


Public universities are not private property; however, some do have "free speech zones."

Public universities are private property under trust to the Board of Trustees. That Board of Trustees controls the property within the confines of the university charter. There is no obligation to permit individuals onto the premises such as there is with, say, a county courthouse. I cannot be denied access to a county courthouse without due legal process, but I can be denied access to a university campus for any reason whatsoever without any legal process.

I will also add that the charter these universities operate on typically include the intent that the university act as a haven for free speech. This brings up the question of why, then, are they designating only certain areas to be affected by that charter? Never mind; that is a discussion for another thread.


Doesn't sound like that was on campus.

The intersection of 15th Street and Hackberry Lane is the corner of the University of Alabama Athletics Department. It is also not a mile away from Bryant-Denny Stadium... closer to a half mile.

The University of Alabama campus is scattered throughout Tuscaloosa; it is not continuous. There is a shopping center also at that intersection, and if the protestors were simply protesting there I would have no issue with their activities. However, they were planning on launching a balloon designed specifically to cause political disrest into the air where it would clearly be visible from Bryant-Denny. You can spin this any way you want; their express intent was to disrupt the game.


While large scale coordinated protests generally require a permit, one can stand on a public sidewalk and hold a balloon or sign without a permit, and it is entirely within one's rights.

So are you admitting that there is no right to protest? Because if the right to protest is founded on the right to peaceably assemble, then requiring a permit for a large protest is unconstitutional. A permit is permission from the government and one need not have permission to exercise a right. It sounds to me that you are equating the right to protest with the right to free speech; that is the reason one can hold up a sign on a street corner.

But that freedom of speech is not absolute. One cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, one cannot slander under the umbrella of free speech, and one cannot incite violence and claim free speech protection.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


First I don't believe flying a balloon is hijacking a game and they did acquire a permit to set up there. You seem to assume they were going into the stadium. I have not seen anywhere it was stated that they intend to or attempted to enter the stadium. If I am wrong please provide a link.

If their intent was not to be seen from Bryant-Denny, then why fly a balloon designed to mock the President?

A balloon of that size is visible from a very far distance when aloft. The intent to make themselves heard in Bryant-Denny is clearly evident. And remember, there is no right to be heard!


So their protest was a mile away according to reports and they did have a permit. Do you still claim they hijacked the game against the school rules? Do you still claim they had no right to assemble?

Firstly, the location specified is closer to a half-mile away. CNN got their geography wrong.

Yes, I claim their intent was to have their protest seen from within Bryant-Denny.

Finally, please do not emulate Fallingdown's error; I made no such statement. They certainly have a right to assemble. They do not have the right to disrupt a sports event.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown


I agree !

I’ve agreed with that position many times.

But I agree again !

Yet it keeps getting thrown in my face why ?

Well, I certainly have no intent of throwing it in your face.

I also cannot speak for others.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The intersection of 15th Street and Hackberry Lane is the corner of the University of Alabama Athletics Department.


Are you saying that this intersection is inside or adjacent to the campus?






edit on 13-11-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁❤🍕



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


The University of Alabama campus is scattered throughout Tuscaloosa; it is not continuous. There is a shopping center also at that intersection, and if the protestors were simply protesting there I would have no issue with their activities.


Most universities do sprawl, and the campus is wide. But roads and sidewalks are generally not university property.

It sounds to me that you are equating the right to protest with the right to free speech; that is the reason one can hold up a sign on a street corner.


Is protest not speech?


But that freedom of speech is not absolute. One cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, one cannot slander under the umbrella of free speech, and one cannot incite violence and claim free speech protection.


True, but irrelevant: because no one is slandering, shouting fire, or inciting violence, the latter which has been very narrowly defined by the SCOTUS, and which doesn't apply here. The speech of the protesters is peaceful and lawful.



posted on Nov, 13 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

Sometimes you have to break some eggs to make an omelette.

Apparently you didn’t read the whole quote either because a much better version of your reply was in it .

I think what he did was great. Do you slight him for standing up against partial late term abortion among other things ?



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join