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.

 

Los Angeles gets tough with political protesters

page: 1
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Los Angeles gets tough with political protesters


www.latimes.com

Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich is throwing the book at dozens of people arrested during recent political demonstrations — a major shift in city policy that has him pressing for jail time in types of cases that previous prosecutors had treated as infractions.

Some of the activists arrested, including eight college students and one military veteran who took part in a Westwood rally last year in support of the DREAM Act, face up to one year in county jail.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Sigh...

I'm sure there will be folks who sit on both sides of the fence of this.

One side will say "yes, these protests are disrupting commerce and access to move freely about city streets", and they would have a point in such statements imho.

The other side will say "These people have a right to free assembly and to raise their voices, particularly in light of what the vast majority of citizens are feeling is a government less and less representative of its people."

But throwing gov protestors in jail for a YEAR?

This sounds like quite a harsh punishment, and a way to INTIMIDATE and crush dissent to me...

Thoughts, Pro and con?

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
If we're lucky, we'll get the exact opposite effect and they'll just piss off more people by doing this.j

Then again, maybe that's what they're trying to make happen *tinfoil hat*



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Definitely strongarm tactics.
There is that pesky first amendment floating artound out there but I don't think they remember it in California.
Welcome to progressive politics.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints
Definitely strongarm tactics.
There is that pesky first amendment floating artound out there but I don't think they remember it in California.
Welcome to progressive politics.


S & F DD - as usual.

Badger, dead to rights. I wouldn't live there for love or money. It's about to take the nutcase crown back from Florida.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I see the point to wanting to give jail time to keep unpredictable protests from endangering people, property, or commerce. And if they grant protest permits free of charge to anyone for any time, at any place and the only point is to ensure sufficient law enforcement is on hand to stop a potential riot or violence then I am ok with it.

I doubt this is the case. The permits are likely restrictive and defeat the purpose of a protest. A protest needs to be disruptive, it needs to be in the way, and above all it needs to get attention. If it fails at that it was pointless and TPTB has just effectively limited that form of free speech.

Maybe this should be met with more protests? Larger ones? Thousands of people to protest jail time for protesters?

The only time I agree with jailing a protester is if they turn violent and attack or destroy people or property.

Anyway... scary precedent, yet again. Anything that needs to be permitted can be controlled and I'm not okay with the right to peaceful assembly being controlled.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Another great find, DD. You've been on fire recently bringing us some great stuff.

Screw commerce. I truly don't care if they are able to peddle their crap for worthless pieces of paper. Money means nothing yet it is what we base our lives upon? Sad. I don't care where it is, anyone in this country should be able to speak their peace, whenever, wherever. I care not about a corporations right to rape us of our money or their right to the land they are using. Oh, the poor, sad corporation and their rights. To hell with them all.

If they don't care about us, only our money, then why should we care about them?

A year in jail for protesting, well, if this is the way things are going to be, then do you not think the protesters will try to get more bang for their buck? If one is going to jail for protesting then might as well make it worth it and take out a building or something.

If we are not allowed to protest, if we cannot hurt them with words, then what alternatives are left?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 

Well i cant say I'm in favor of being arrested for speaking your mind. But i know what they did. They blocked traffic by laying on the street and didn't have the proper paperwork to hold a peaceful rally that day. It caused a 2 hour traffic jam. The dream ACT is more like a nightmare where American citizens front the bill for illegal aliens to get a college education. Yeah i know sounds like a bad idea right! Not according to the California supreme court they passed it. Yeah that's right people who shouldn't even be here are allowed to go to college and you have to pay for it. I wonder how many of them are going to pay it back or become citizens after they get a degree.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 


We definitely still have options available to us friend. Check out the Armageddon Conspiracy website. Happy hunting!



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
The slide to tyranny continues.. Today a year in jail for peaceful protest.. Next a bullet in the head for dissent.. Dissent is not tolerated in the new totalitarian states of amerika - conform.. be good citizens of the state or else.. Quite sad really what america is fast turning into..



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Hmmm...a year is crazy and will only cause bitterness (and probably violence). I don't agree with what they were protesting, but that doesn't matter. I think they should be made to pay back a percentage of revenue lost to the local businesses...that seems fair (but only in the cases where they are directly blocking traffic). Honestly, "permits" to protest are insane and should ALWAYS be ignored. Don't give the state an inch.
edit on 11-2-2011 by SmokeandShadow because: added more



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinglelord
I see the point to wanting to give jail time to keep unpredictable protests from endangering people, property, or commerce.


...agreed...



Originally posted by Jinglelord
And if they grant protest permits free of charge to anyone for any time, at any place and the only point is to ensure sufficient law enforcement is on hand to stop a potential riot or violence then I am ok with it.


...free permits, that'd be wonderful - but - i dont agree with "to anyone for any time, at any place"...

...if the kkk decides their ideal protest place is on the sidewalks or streets surrounding a church that is predominately attended by blacks, i have BIG issues with that...

...if a pro-pedophilic group wants to protest society discriminating against them and their choice of place is in front of an elementary school - i have BIG issues with that...

...if a group decides to protest in front of a hospital's emergency room - i have BIG issues with that...

...if a group decided to protest on my section of I-35 and, in effect, shut it down, i would have BIG issues with that and so would thousands of other people who would be directly affected... considering the massive amount of truckers that use that corridor, the number of people directly affected by the protest would increase to hundreds of thousands very quickly...

...the westboro baptist church is a valid example of why we cannot allow protestors to choose where they protest with absolutely no boundaries at all... it may sound unfair to protestors who would never sink to the levels of depravity that the westboro bunch does or the kkk bunch does - but - that doesnt rule out the reality that some protestors are low-life slitherin scum who set up camp in your front yard if they could get away with it...


Originally posted by Jinglelord
The permits are likely restrictive and defeat the purpose of a protest. A protest needs to be disruptive, it needs to be in the way, and above all it needs to get attention. If it fails at that it was pointless and TPTB has just effectively limited that form of free speech.


...dont agree with that at all... your right to protest is not more important than my need to go about my day without having to deal with you (and i dont mean you personally, jinglelord)...


Originally posted by Jinglelord
Maybe this should be met with more protests? Larger ones? Thousands of people to protest jail time for protesters?


...and what about the citizens that have their life disrupted by that, maybe even threatened?...


Originally posted by Jinglelord
The only time I agree with jailing a protester is if they turn violent and attack or destroy people or property.


...agreed - those are offenses that warrant jail time - but - what about the repercussion we dont hear about?... a house burns down because the fire department cant get to it in time due to an un-permit-ed protest or one that got out of control... victims of an auto crash bleed to death because EMS couldnt get to them in time due to an un-permit-ed protest or one that got out of control...


Originally posted by Jinglelord
Anyway... scary precedent, yet again.


...i dont think its scary... i think making it seem scary is just spin-doctering to promote the mentality that says your right to protest is more important than my right to attend to my daily functions without having to deal with your bs... (again, i dont mean you personally, jinglelord)...


Originally posted by Jinglelord
Anything that needs to be permitted can be controlled and I'm not okay with the right to peaceful assembly being controlled.


...if a protest is blocking traffic and/or otherwise impeding other citizens, its not a peaceful assembly... just because we dont hear about all the lives that were endangered or disrupted due to a protest, doesnt mean they dont exist...

...theres always been a risk of protesters becoming so self-absorbed that they lose track of what they're really trying to accomplish and their protesting becomes just another excuse to be a narcississtic ass...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I don't believe anybody should be in jail, unless they physically harm another person. Period.

If this is inconvience to commerce, or a violation of some code, write them a ticket, and tell them to move. Come back in 30 minutes and do the same. It will add up and they will move soon enough.

I totally agree that threatening jail is intimidation and coercion and a deterrent to free assembly, and thus unconstitutional!



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I say lock em all up
Then lock up the people who protest those lock ups... then lock up the people who protest those lock ups...

Sooner or later the jails will be over flowing and commerce will cease because everyone is locked up



I feel the sudden urge to get a few more case of ammo



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 



...if the kkk decides their ideal protest place is in the sidewalks or streets surrounding a church that is predominately attended by blacks, i have BIG issues with that...


The law should allow for "natural consequences."

If the KKK wants to protest outside a black church, fine. If the members get on the horn and call in all their buddies to arrive just as church lets out, and the KKK ends up plastered to the trees and sidewalk, also fine. They will choose more wisely next time. Natural consequences result in people making much wiser decisions. If someone uses their right of free speech to threaten me, and I take them at their word and preemptively end the threat, the law should recognize both of our rights and stay out of it!

If the law was used to protect the weak and serve the people, then it would be fantastic. Instead, the law is used to intimidate, structure, corral, and punish. That was never its intention. The laws should not be punitive in nature. If someone is a threat, they need locked up. If they are not a threat, they need fined. We should not be deciding how many years is the proper punishment for some infraction?

Juries were supposed to be the final check after laws, police, and judges, but juries are manipulated to think they don't have choices. Judges are bound by laws requiring minimum sentences. The system is broken, and only lawyers and politicians are able to traverse it for their own agendas.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 





face up to one year in county jail.

WHAT!!!!



To put this in perspective: I had a semi truck and 48 foot refer stolen. It was driven through several states. So we are looking at grand larceny across state borders and all the broken DOT regs.

The guy has a criminal record of FOUR convections including attempted murder.

Guess what his MAXIMUM sentence will be according to the DA??? - Three months suspended sentence! NOT one fracken day in jail!

So Protesting carries a much heavier sentence then STEALING????


And it is NOT against the law???


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

WHAT about the words Congress shall make no law do these people not understand???



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I'm kind of torn about this. I can see how this can be abused and used to stifle legitimate free speech and I hate the thought of that. On the other hand, better the protesters than me when I would have absolutely no second thoughts at all about running them over in a frantic rush to the hospital in an emergency but found that I couldn't get there because some people decided to close down traffic for the day.

I don't have to agree with whatever they are protesting about to value their right to protest about it. That doesn't mean that they can shut down the streets and traffic, however. I might value their right to protest but that absolutely doesn't mean that I wouldn't race at top speed to the hospital in an emergency with a protester hood ornament if I needed to do so.

Definitely exercise your right to free speech and I will support you in that, no matter how much I might disagree with what you have to say, but do it without infringing on and taking away the rights of someone else. If you turn people against you with your actions, it doesn't matter what you have to say, the people won't want to hear it. Stage your protest in a way that doesn't alienate and anger others and you have a much higher chance of being heard and winning people to your way of thinking.

Take care,
Cindi



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
what wrong are political protesters doing again?
edit on 11-2-2011 by la vie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Wyn Hawks
 


Many valid points and as usual measuring a knee jerk reaction...

Perhaps part of the point of a real un-permitted protest is to show you are willing to do jail time and suffer consequences for what you believe. This weeds out the narcissistic weekend warriors who just want to cause trouble for fun with no consequence.

As far as the permitting goes I may have gone a bit too far, but I still believe a permit will need to be issued fairly for any group to assemble regardless of if it is the boy scouts of america or the klan. This is the essence of free speech and assembly.

Far a good (Mostly)"True Story" movie on the subject check out: en.wikipedia.org...(film) Skokie. I think it handles both sides of the subject well.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

WHAT about the words Congress shall make no law do these people not understand???


ummm they are not Congress?





top topics



 
24
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join