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.

 

Police arrest anti-war protester, 80, at mall.

page: 9
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
Also DK how were your due process rights violated?


I was sent to jail for a DUI. The judge set my date for sentencing six months down the line and I was carted off to jail. Six months later I was transported to LA County court in Van Nuys for my sentencing for the DUI.

This is now extremely common in most cases now. The excuse I was given was the judge wanted me in jail for at ;east six months and given that LA County jail system is over-crowded she thought I would/could be released after a very short period (10% of total time).

I discussed this with a sargent in Jail who said it was total crap because of my prior. DUI laws and policies went into effect in the jail system which especially DUI offenders were not eligible for early release if they had a prior(s).

He was one of the few men of great integrity in that field and he showed me the truth. My research afterward also confirmed what he showed me. He also mentioned that he was considering retirement because he was disillusioned with the "system".

And for the police officer who I have been talking to- if you go back over our conversation you will see that you conveyed taking rights away and how I drew those conclusions. I did not pick things out of a delusionally troubled mind to make my own arguments seem logical and justified as you insinuated,

I did mention my personal experiences and how as a citizen of ordinary and limited compassion and understanding of my rights- I have managed to communicate more effectively and peaceably and with greater results and more public appeal than you and your kind have.

That said- I have never once stated that you are wrong. I have never once insinuated that you are delusional and although I did lump your colleagues into three categories of good, bad and the stupid- I never pigeon holed and labeled you into either three because that would be presumptuous. And disrespectful.

Our argument was about the process and my examples were how the public is getting the shaft because of the process. Also pointing out that most of this egregious behavior is being taken out on the elderly, handicapped and children- who have a difficult time defending themselves and must count on a trusted servant to help them understand and keep them out of harms way.

All you have done is call me names in an attempt to make me appear stupid, crazy or worse because you cannot make your point. I will let other people draw conclusions as to what this means.

My anger and emotional expression was based solely on my experiences and for people who cannot readily defend themselves- which is why I believe you were hired to handle.

Judges and the rest- when they can't handle it- take away the citizens ability to learn.

Now, sir I will let you have it.

You are nothing more than a bad baby sitter with a gun who is morally conflicted by your own integrity and know that there is nothing you can do- so a good cop like you is secretly and covertly used as a public relations device- because who can say the systems screwed when a stand-up guy like you dons a uniform.

You are leading the sheep to slaughter and you are too stupid to know it and your moral high ground is your self-reinforcing delusion. (there now we are even for you calling me crazy).


PS- You may even think my right to due process was not violated because I had more than one DUI. A lot of people do you know! Show them a picture of a dead child that I could have it- well anyone can write the rest....


PPS- I am not proud that I was irresponsible enough to drive while under the influence more than once. I put this information out here because I am not afraid to admit my mistakes and post my shortcomings. We all make mistakes. Some mistakes however create opportunities for unbelievable and extraordinary exploitation which is often far worse than the original mistake itself. I am responsible enough to give up (voluntarily) my personal right to drive. I did this to show that regardless of recovery and paying a debt to society- that I can police myself and ensure society that this mistake will never happen again on my part. Just because I am willing to do this does not make it an example for anyone other than me. My life is much more stress free- I never realized how much I disliked driving to begin with.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by dk3000]




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Well a little more food for thought....
What happened to the public square??? For many people it has moved to the mall. The mall is private property not public commons. So you end up with protests or people exercising their 1st amendment rights in Free Speech Zones. Not good for free speech. Sounds like a lawsuit in the making. Maybe it is time for free speech zones in the mall!

From Wiki:


Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries. Though authorities generally deny specifically targeting protesters, on a number of occasions, these denials have been contradicted by subsequent court testimony. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed, with various degrees of success and failure, a number of lawsuits on the issue.

The most prominent examples are those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration.[3] While free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush, it has been during Bush's presidency that their scope has been greatly expanded.[4]

Many colleges and universities earlier instituted free speech zone rules during the Vietnam-era protests of the 1960s and 1970s. In recent years, a number of them have revised or removed these restrictions following student protests and lawsuits.

Civil libertarians claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[19] There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas — the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[19] The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."[15][20]

The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protesters to stay within a designated area, while allowing supporters access to more areas.[16] According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media.[16]

The preliminary plan for the 2004 Democratic National Convention was criticized by the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Massachusetts as being insufficient to handle the size of the expected protest. "The zone would hold as few as 400 of the several thousand protesters who are expected in Boston in late July."[21]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dk3000
 


Great post,starred.Did you not have a bond?Or were you found guilty of DUI and had sentencing delayed?



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by dk3000
 


Yet another star for this post on the last page I just read,your on it today arnt you?Yea repitition is a good form of mind control.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:36 PM
link   
FLAGGED AND STARRED!!!

this article being posted is why ats is so rad.

woo hoO!!



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
well its obvious that anyone posting here CAN read....

i wont even accuse anyone of a lack of reading comprehension here...

what i do see though is RCW has gone OUT OF HIS WAY to try to explain, from a legal standpoint, how the FACTS of this instance were NOT a reflection on anyones civil rights and how the officers in this case behaved IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW!

seriously are some of you so BIASED that youre unwilling or unable to DENY IGNORANCE and see this for what it is?

i dont know about some of you but im kind of glad i live in a country where if someone assaulted my wife and the cops got to them before i did that there is a good chance they'd have time in a cell to ponder their decisions.

i may not like many of the things my government does but im glad that i live in a land of laws and when i go to the store im not getting food that has poisons added to bulk up the volume because its cheaper to produce and would make the company more money. i kind of like knowign that wahts on the label is really whats in it and that if its not i have recourse beyond blowing up their factory (the knowledge for which i got from the same govt so maybe its me thats biased but i think not)

i guess that most of all, despite the fact some of you think all of our civil rights are being stripped, i like the fact that i can come here and say whatever i want (within the T&C's of course cuz this site in a sense is still MORE private property as much as if SO let us all hang out in his house and have these discussions)



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


No one is arguing that his civil rights were violated-atleast Im not,alot of these post that got "firey"are a lil of topic but still relate to the civil rights topic.I dont know what post you have read to bring up the FDA and food and labeling,but that -no one is talking about,if you open your eyes you will see that our "great country"is going down hill and we are losing our "unalienable"rights.We are simply using this incident to reflect on the current situatation in America.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by dk3000
And for the police officer who I have been talking to- if you go back over our conversation you will see that you conveyed taking rights away and how I drew those conclusions. I did not pick things out of a delusionally troubled mind to make my own arguments seem logical and justified as you insinuated,


Sir I can no longer debate with you, you cannot grasp the concept here. I NEVER ONCE took this mans rights away or suggested such. IT IS NOT A RIGHT TO HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!!!! No rights were violated here...end of story! AGAIN you need to understand the laws, the 1st amendment, and private property!!!!


I did mention my personal experiences and how as a citizen of ordinary and limited compassion and understanding of my rights- I have managed to communicate more effectively and peaceably and with greater results and more public appeal than you and your kind have.


Sorry but me and my kind don't have the luxury you do. We have to enforce a law when someone trespasses....regardless of the 1st amendment...AGAIN you fail to see the issue at hand and try to make it something it is not...please dude...grab on to this ride and stop falling off!


That said- I have never once stated that you are wrong. I have never once insinuated that you are delusional and although I did lump your colleagues into three categories of good, bad and the stupid- I never pigeon holed and labeled you into either three because that would be presumptuous. And disrespectful.


I honestly appreciate the gesture but your mind is made up that I have taken this mans rights away, and that cops didn't do the right thing....so you ARE saying I was wrong, and you ARE lumping me/us into one of those catagories. Sir you seem like you have GREAT intentions...and I commend you for them...but you gotta do it all with as clear a head as possible. Which means when the law is broken while excersizing your 1st amendment right, like it was here, you need to know that and not assume the rights you have are being taken away.


Our argument was about the process and my examples were how the public is getting the shaft because of the process. Also pointing out that most of this egregious behavior is being taken out on the elderly, handicapped and children- who have a difficult time defending themselves and must count on a trusted servant to help them understand and keep them out of harms way/


I agree...100%...and I hope the officers DID explain to the man exactly what was going on...and exactly why he had to be arrested. Again, I wish this would of worked out different..


All you have done is call me names in an attempt to make me appear stupid, crazy or worse because you cannot make your point. I will let other people draw conclusions as to what this means.


I have made my point atleast 5 or 6 times in this thread and 99% of the other readers got it, understood it, didn't like it, but seen why this went down how it did...you are somehow missing the boat...either on purpose are just not grasping the concept of law/private property/freedom of speech. And i didn't call you any names...I insinuated something must be wrong because you cant understand this...and for that I apologize...but cmon man..I made it as clear as the LAW allows...


My anger and emotional expression was based solely on my experiences and for people who cannot readily defend themselves- which is why I believe you were hired to handle.


That I understand...and don't blame you...but the cops didnt harm him, noone did. He trespassed and the mall owners/staff arrested him for it...thats it...nothing more...your anger should be with the private property owners...



You are nothing more than a bad baby sitter with a gun who is morally conflicted by your own integrity and know that there is nothing you can do- so a good cop like you is secretly and covertly used as a public relations device- because who can say the systems screwed when a stand-up guy like you dons a uniform.


WOW...was this your last ditch effort to just vent...lol...well if it made you FINALLY feel better then good...maybe venting will help you see what we have all been discussing.


You are leading the sheep to slaughter and you are too stupid to know it and your moral high ground is your self-reinforcing delusion. (there now we are even for you calling me crazy).


ha...ok fine...I'll take one for the team....


PS- You may even think my right to due process was not violated because I had more than one DUI. A lot of people do you know! Show them a picture of a dead child that I could have it- well anyone can write the rest....


No idea if it was violated...I didn't see the court documents and what you and your lawyer agreed to etc....and if the courts screwed you over that is above me...cops have nothing to do with due process except after the initial arrest...why a judge did this to you...NO IDEA...



PPS- I am not proud that I was irresponsible enough to drive while under the influence more than once. I put this information out here because I am not afraid to admit my mistakes and post my shortcomings. We all make mistakes. Some mistakes however create opportunities for unbelievable and extraordinary exploitation which is often far worse than the original mistake itself. I am responsible enough to give up (voluntarily) my personal right to drive. I did this to show that regardless of recovery and paying a debt to society- that I can police myself and ensure society that this mistake will never happen again on my part. Just because I am willing to do this does not make it an example for anyone other than me. My life is much more stress free- I never realized how much I disliked driving to begin with.


Well driving ISN'T a right....you don't decide that. But your right, we all make mistakes and many of us are better off because we LEARN from making them. so good for you if it has helped you...thats what life is all about...bettering yourself and enjoying it before it all comes to an end...



[edit on 4/1/2008 by rcwj75]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dk3000
Same words over again. Repetition is the most effective form of mind control. When that fails force is very effective. More effective still is when someone is trained in the art of repetitive phrases and words and doesn't even know it- BAM powerfully effective.


ummm ok sir...listen....me telling you the same thing over and over and over and over because your either not grasping what I am saying, or are so full of hate you refuse to accept it...is WAAAY different them me repeating something trying to seize your mind....holy crap...cmon man


EDIT TO ADD: To all of you who read my posts and understood the reasons why LEGALLY this took place...thanks for saying so. I tried to explain it the best I could. The situation sucks...thats for sure....

[edit on 4/1/2008 by rcwj75]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
i]reply to post by rcwj75
 


LOL,would you stop saying AGAIN,and sir so much maybe??I feel like Im watching a epidsode of Cops.

[edit on 4/1/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


I really dislike hypicritical members like you that keep using "deny ignorance"like its a da** holy verse,I mean come on,you are not "denying ignorance"because you are bashing other members views of the gov.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by dk3000
 


Great post,starred.Did you not have a bond?Or were you found guilty of DUI and had sentencing delayed?


Yes I was out on bond for a year while I fought the case. It is not important to go detail through detail as this is not a thread about DUI's or my personal criminal negligence. I was not "found" guilty. I copped a plea of "no contest". I was fully insured and responsible other than tippling and driving.

The Judge and court accepted and entered my plea- set a date for sentencing six months from that day and placed me into custody right then and there! It was that obvious- that quick as if nothing was wrong.

A friend who was court with me that day- moved out of California a few weeks later. He is a smart, sober attorney who no longer wished to be a part of this disgusting farce called the "Justice system".

For my part- while in jail- there were riots and insanity the likes of which I hope no one ever experiences. I do not want to talk about the nightmare of LA County jail except to say this.

I am not as vengeful and hate filled as some might have you believe on this thread.

While I was in jail I created and put together a business plan/grant for the internal education program and raised over $800,000.00 in less than 30 days. The cool sargeant I mentioned before had been applying for this money for almost 10 years and was denied every year.

So, when my sentencing date came up and I saw that #nut judge- she gave me another 4 months and sent me back into that hellhole.

Sgt. Xxxx could not believe it! So 24 hours later- it was arranged and my name was announced for release.

The point is- Yes there are very good cops who do make a difference. They do not stand on a moral high-horse polishing a bad apple and making it pretty. They stick their neck out and make a difference from the inside. There are not many of these cops.

And to end this argument about the 80-year old man. This story is all over talk radio and the news. The man was having lunch with his wife in a food court. There were lots of people including this man who were wearing anti-war t-shirts. They were asked to reverse their shirts. He would not. He refused, then he was wheeled out into the parking lot and placed under "citizens" arrest.

He made his way onto one of these talks shows with T-shirt in hand. The laughter from the DJ was hilarious. It was not offensive- it was a political message to end the war. He was not disturbing anyone. He was eating his lunch.

Lets see what "super-cop" has to say about this now!



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
WOW in a way im honored....its not often i get a person responding to one of my posts twice, and with such angst. i hope you feel better.




Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Damocles
 


No one is arguing that his civil rights were violated-atleast Im not,alot of these post that got "firey"are a lil of topic but still relate to the civil rights topic.I dont know what post you have read to bring up the FDA and food and labeling,but that -no one is talking about,if you open your eyes you will see that our "great country"is going down hill and we are losing our "unalienable"rights.


well, the very title of the thread (which is inappropriate) suggests that at least the OP thought that this was a civil rights issue. the FDA related part was simply to point out the fact that while we all may distrust the government and that there are laws that suck, by and large the body of laws in this country are actually probably not a bad thing...



We are simply using this incident to reflect on the current situatation in America.
then maybe you can articulatly, and briefly explain the "situation in this country" cuz while i see what i see apparently its not what you see and thats ok...but even if i agreed 100% with your opinions overall, i fail to see ANYTHING in this sitation that reflects on anything other than this 80yo mans poor judgement.

"this incident" has nothing to do with the cops. it has nothing to do with free speech. it has nothing to do with the war.


Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Damocles
 


I really dislike hypicritical members like you that keep using "deny ignorance"like its a da** holy verse,I mean come on,you are not "denying ignorance"because you are bashing other members views of the gov.


first, explain how im a hypocrit in this instance? id be interested not so much cuz i think your wrong but becuase ifyoure right then its an opportunity for personal growth as i hate hypocricy as much as anyone in myself in particular. so please....enlighten me.

as to the rest...i wasnt accusing anyone for being ignorant for their views of the governement. i was implying that maybe a few of the posters in this thread were embracing ignorance for repeatedly suggesting that the cops were in the wrong IN THIS ONE INSTANCE!

for gods sake...for those too lazy to do their own research into property laws, free speech issues and freedom of expression and protesting issues we have a bona fide police officer here to clear it up and yet....there are still some out there that are so sure this mans rights were violated and that the police were being nothing short of jack booted thugs. IN THIS CASE. SO, when its obvious to anyone who is paying attention that this isnt a constitutional or civil rights issue doesnt it then appear that those that insist that it was are being almost willfully ignorant?

maybe its just me. if you were offended by my posts then i guess ill apologize though i feel no real need to as im as entitled to express my opinions as the next man or woman so long as i stay in the T&C's. As i didnt say that YOU were being ignorant, i violated no rules and if you found offense in what i said then maybe you need to look within vs lashing out?

just a thought.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dk3000
And to end this argument about the 80-year old man. This story is all over talk radio and the news. The man was having lunch with his wife in a food court. There were lots of people including this man who were wearing anti-war t-shirts. They were asked to reverse their shirts. He would not. He refused, then he was wheeled out into the parking lot and placed under "citizens" arrest.

He made his way onto one of these talks shows with T-shirt in hand. The laughter from the DJ was hilarious. It was not offensive- it was a political message to end the war. He was not disturbing anyone. He was eating his lunch.

Lets see what "super-cop" has to say about this now!


wow..just wow..I give up...your failure to still understand what happened here (or what the argument is about) has now hit a level I will not sink too...thanks for a good debate everyone...maybe someone else can explain it in a way this person will finally understand it!



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj75

Originally posted by dk3000
And to end this argument about the 80-year old man. This story is all over talk radio and the news. The man was having lunch with his wife in a food court. There were lots of people including this man who were wearing anti-war t-shirts. They were asked to reverse their shirts. He would not. He refused, then he was wheeled out into the parking lot and placed under "citizens" arrest.

He made his way onto one of these talks shows with T-shirt in hand. The laughter from the DJ was hilarious. It was not offensive- it was a political message to end the war. He was not disturbing anyone. He was eating his lunch.

Lets see what "super-cop" has to say about this now!


wow..just wow..I give up...your failure to still understand what happened here (or what the argument is about) has now hit a level I will not sink too...thanks for a good debate everyone...maybe someone else can explain it in a way this person will finally understand it!


You did not give up- you sent for reinforcements to win your arguments in an effort make me submit to your understanding because you could not achieve this on your own. This is how armies are created- battles are started and fought which ultimately leads to war.

No matter how many who gather and come to your defense will never be able to take away or reform the lessons I have learned from my experiences.

It is my sincerest wish for all in this thread to draw your own conclusions based on your own experiences of life. I do not invite anyone to join me- rather it is an open invitation for everyone to join themselves who have not already done so.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


I dont think DK is arguing that the guys rights were violated.I think he is simply saying(NOW ALL WHO SAY DIFFERENT,LISTEN TO THIS CLOSELY)that the laws in place that allowed him to be arrested are extremly wrong and unconstitional by definition.Not trying to start anything with you RCW but maybe you are failing to understand what DK is saying-and in no way am I taking sides,I remin neutral,I simply lean towards the logical arguments and give my opinions of such.I think the legal system and constituion)Im sure you will agree)are fundalmently flawed with numerous loop holes and paradoxes.

Side note:Great reply to this post DK,once again(god,I sound like a cop....lol)starred.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by rcwj75
 


II think he is simply saying(NOW ALL WHO SAY DIFFERENT,LISTEN TO THIS CLOSELY)that the laws in place that allowed him to be arrested are extremly wrong and unconstitional by definition.


now THIS i wouldnt have any issues agreeing with you on. there ARE laws that arent rational or logical in any sense of the word.

see im not totally irrational and biased



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by rcwj75
 


II think he is simply saying(NOW ALL WHO SAY DIFFERENT,LISTEN TO THIS CLOSELY)that the laws in place that allowed him to be arrested are extremly wrong and unconstitional by definition.


now THIS i wouldnt have any issues agreeing with you on. there ARE laws that arent rational or logical in any sense of the word.

see im not totally irrational and biased


Well atleast we can agree on something,lol



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Ok yes to THAT point I agree...the laws are written in such ways that may not make sense. I even wish they were rewritten at times too. But to say some members posting on here WEREN'T areguing his rights were violated is wrong. If that was the case this thread wouldn't have turned into a COPS SUCK type atmosphere from some posters. Instead IF they would of truly understood the situation and DIDN'T like the law in question then they would of argued that, NOT the police.

You said it best..he didn't like how THE LAW made it that this old man couldn't exercise his 1st amendment right and his frustration SHOULD of been clear to THE LAW...not police.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by IchiNiSan
 


We elected Nixon twice. That was more mind boggling, IMO. At least the 2004 Bush election could be attributed to rigging (though, more than likely, blind patriotism did its fair share to assist the situation).

...And don't forget that China is not without its questionable leaders either. There are very few countries in this world who have managed to get rid of their bad leaders in a timely manner.

***

This story just makes me want to vomit. The whole country is going down in flames and we call security to remove an old man for wearing a shirt that tells the ugly truth. Lo, how the mighty have fallen.

/tn.


[edit on 1-4-2008 by teleonaut]



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join