ABC Producer Arrested in Denver For Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors!, page 6

And it looks like the thugs from the Denver Po-Po just keep at their strong-arming and bullying the citizens:

Repression in Denver Highlights assault on Democratic Rights in Denver

On Wednesday, police raided the headquarters of a group—Unconventional Denver—protesting at the Democratic National Convention, arresting several people, destroying, and seizing property. The calculated effort to intimidate the protesters and suppress dissent has gone unnoted by the national media, let alone the Democratic Party politicians assembled in the Pepsi Center in Denver.

The police acted illegally, producing no warrant before raiding the small building and the area around it. A bulldozer plowed up sign-making material and deposited it in a dump truck. Two organizers were arrested and charged with disobeying a lawful order. Police claim one had a knife; a protester countered that it was a small pocketknife.

Full Story:

www.wsws.org...

Sounds like the Denver PD is leading the charge towards full blown Fascism...The irony of this taking place during the "Democratic" convention is both laughable and disturbing at the same time. Unreal...

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

---

Why is it unreal? Obama is no different than McCain. they both want a NWO police state.

reply to post by crimvelvet

---

LOL...Quite true. Perhaps I should have said surreal instead of unreal...Just amazing how far our rights have eroded in just the past several years. Very sad.

reply to post by GrndLkNatv

---

Hoo, Lane is going to destroy them, hopefully. Censorship and abuse of power are too much these days.

reply to post by Cyberbian

---

If the mayor is running his city with just ocassional reports of his police officers actions, then he's not doing a very good job. It is after all his job to make sure that his city is running properly.

If his police officers are out of control, using excessive force, etc, then maybe he should be micro managing them, or appointing a police commisioner that can control his police force.


As far as the candidates, they should be aware of what's going on with the police force in this country. They are running for the office of the POTUS and as such one will run this country. The leader of this country has a responsibility to make sure that it's police force is not violating the constitutional rights of it's citizens.

reply to post by zorgon

---

As a land surveyor I can tell you that it is rare to find parcels that include the sidewalk anymore. 9 times out of 10 the parcel includes everything up to the sidewalk. Back in the day they would give ownership to the CL of the road, but not very often anymore. Not to say this is the case, but I doubt it.

Not interested enough to do the legwork. It is a moot point. I don't care if he was in the lobby of the Hotel, his rights were violated.

reply to post by crimvelvet

---

"Don't talk about what you have done or what you are going to do." -- Thomas Jefferson

If you were to look up my past posts here on ATS, you'll find that I spread information...Because that's all I can do on ATS.

Further, this Ignorance Assassin sayeth not...

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

---

It varies too much on who owns a sidewalk to say for sure, from specific property, to city, county, and state (well, area, since nobody but Oklahoma has renounced the 14th amendment, yet).

Perhaps these will be helpful:
findarticles.com...
www.krages.com...

And this:
www.metnews.com...
the courts (all the way to supreme court) decided that yes, even though the side-walk was privately constructed, it STILL was considered a public space, and demonstrators had a right to have a permit for it. but even so, one person, taking photographs, doesn't need a permit to shoot unless there's some kind of regional law, county/city/district/etc... Go try to shoot somewhere in LA without a permit.

But yeah, not knowing what the charges are (hmm, me thinks they'll be released without charges, BIG surprise, heh)... not really much sense to speculate.

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Are you so naive as to believe that the candidates have any idea what the police are doing?

Considering that both candidates are going for the same Office that administrates law enforcement in government, they damn well better know what's going on! The real trick is that none of the candidates would actually be candidates at this point if they were not intending to follow the "party line" to let it continue...Because their real bosses are the banks (Fed Res, IMF, World Bank) who don't give a flying fudge about human rights (banks care only for money).

Originally posted by Loki
Hoo, Lane is going to destroy them, hopefully.

ABC really should destroy them in court...That would only be exercising Justice under the Supreme Law of the Land.

Originally posted by chise61
If the mayor is running his city with just ocassional reports of his police officers actions, then he's not doing a very good job. It is after all his job to make sure that his city is running properly.

"His" city? Strange...By Law, the city actually belongs to the People. Mayors are only responsible for management...Under proper obedience to the Supreme Law of the Land. Why else is the Office described as an "Office of Public Trust?" If he violates that Trust, he's no longer qualified to hold the job.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln
Hey, Abe was only paraphrasing part of the Preamble in the Declaration of Independence ya' know!

Every Office in government relies on the consent of the People...Every government throughout the whole of human history relies on the consent of the People. History itself shows what happens to governments when the Peoples' consent is revoked with violence...revolts, rebellions. America is the first to have a Supreme Law that contains peaceful means for the People to revoke consent, mostly described in the Bill of Rights.
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." -- Abraham Lincoln

Originally posted by johnsky
The people are now the enemies of state... this is what a police state is all about.

The actual "Declarations of War" were committed to paper & enactment with the Patriot Act & the Military Commissions Act & other such corraborative documents, such as many of Bush's "signing statements" & "Presidental Directives." Strange...I thought the Constitution delegated all powers of legislation to Congress...What's the President doing by enforcing that which is not Law, but only his own "word?" I smell dictatorship here.

Since government cannot operate without the consent of the People, then by proxy, the Police State is actually being invoked in the name of the People...In your name & mine. I don't know about you, but I'm used peaceful means to revoke my consent...But as long as more than a minority of People still gives their consent to government, the situation will only get worse.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I don't care if he was in the lobby of the Hotel, his rights were violated.

You got that right. The Right of Peaceful Assembly & the Right of a Free Press has no boundaries, as such. Since there were no specific boundaries written into the Supreme Law of the Land, then no such boundaries exist. Besides, isn't a "hotel" supposed to be "public access?" How could a commercial enterprise even operate & earn profits without access to the public anyway?

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
...it STILL was considered a public space, and demonstrators had a right to have a permit for it.

I see inconsistency in that statement: Since the Supreme Court has declared that the exercise of Rights cannot be taxed, require any kind of licensing or permits, or any other restriction that doesn't involve the equal responsibility to not violate the equal Rights of others. Licenses/permits are only to regulate a privilege, so how could the Right to Peaceful Assembly require a permit that is only for regulating privileges?

Technically, asking for a "permit" means that the "peaceful assembly" is begging the government to regulate a Right as if it were a privilege instead...But no government agency can legally require the issue of a permit for people to exercise a fundamental Right. Do you see the inconsistency here?

Hey, I'm only talking common sense here, with the Law as my resource for background information...

[edit on 2-9-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

---

I know that the city belongs to the people, i didn't mean "his city" literally. I was referring to it as his city in the terms of his job scope. Similar to the way that in my last job the departments that i was responsible for the inventory in were referred to as being "my departments" by upper management. They were not really my departments, belonged to the company not me, it's just a way of pointing out what people are responsible for.

Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can\'t opt out
  Posted 18 days ago with 78 member flags

BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
  Posted 2 days ago with 73 member flags

Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 6 days ago with 72 member flags

Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 17 days ago with 67 member flags

FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
  Posted 9 days ago with 53 member flags

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 5 days ago with 49 member flags

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
  Posted 5 days ago with 41 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: