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: 2
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Free speech doesn't include threats, obscenity, or incitement. So nobody can exercise their right to free speech by threatening you.

Natural consequences while sounding like a fantastic idea would not be conducive to civilization.

As in your example the Klan decides to protest outside of a Church they dislike. They somehow get a permit to stand out of the way on public property (Should be permitted), the people of the Church can respond in kind, not with excessive violence. They can stand outside KKK HQ and protest or simply counter protest on the spot. As soon as violence erupts the perpetrator of that violence has proven they are not fit to live in a free society and will be locked up.

Part of the whole freedom not being free thing means you need to occasionally pay the price of restraint and fight your urges to be civilized and disagree in a civilized way (A peaceful protest for example).

As I alluded to above there are times for non-peaceful protests, but when you start one you better know there are consequences or you better have enough people behind you that you are the consequence...




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Has Success Spoiled Carmen Trutanich?

In a speech given to the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association the day after he was elected, he said:


"I'm not going to let you down...We're going to prosecute misdemeanor ethics law violations by politicians...We're going to change the way politics is played in the City of Los Angeles...The future of this city is going to be bright and clean...I want to be your City Attorney. I want to be the people's lawyer..I want to hear what you think is broken and I want to try to fix it. I'm not a politician. God forbid I ever become one."


Trutanich campaigned on busting the corruption that has permeated The City of Los Angeles since her beginnings, but has he done this? I suppose it never occurred to voters that Trutanich has his own law firm, and is firmly entrenched as one of the priest class lawyer set, so when it comes to "busting the corruption" of city officials it is interesting to note:


Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich is precluded from investigating and/or prosecuting his clients for taking high salaries and not showing up for work, and perhaps Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley already has enough on his plate. Maybe it's time for the US Attorney to do something to justify his salary and clamp down on the Los Angeles City Council - somebody has to.


Well, if you can't beat City Hall, then maybe the next best thing is to beat the crap out of people who protest the corruption of City Hall.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Recent events in Egypt can tend to make protest 'fashionable' and something people might be more inclined to consider taking part in.

Jail time is simply a political response to deter people from adopting such attitudes.

So this is a pretty natural reaction on the part of the establishment.

While eyes are riveted on places like Egypt, believe me yes, behind the scenes here, quiet steps will be taken to shore up the establishments defences and yes, to even learn from the mistakes the Egyptian Government made in not nipping the movement in the bud.

The beast learns and adapts as it grows, and will change it's strategies accordingly to perpetuate and grow itself.

This is the nature of our world, and it is a sad reality that the people of Los Angeles will not go out and protest this in mass, and overload the system.

Clogging up the courts and jails with these cases would be the way to go to highlight it in the media in a way that people see the inherent danger in the police state, that you had better believe is going to take additional steps to protect itself in wake of recent events elsewhere in the world.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
WHAT about the words Congress shall make no law do these people not understand???



Originally posted by zorgon
ummm they are not Congress?




...and there ya go, ladies and gentlemen - someone with a fully functional brain...

...btw, zorgon, sometimes your posts and hot coffee are dangerous together...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The idea you need a permit from an illegitimate government is crazy. It stinks to high heaven of a citizenry so used to enslavement that they have forgotten how to rise off their knees. Maybe we should ask permission to speak ill of our politicians as well. If a government disregards laws, and the citizens rights why would we should we concern ourselves with a traffic jam. One hundred thousand dead in iraq, and were worrying about making someone late! God almighty where is our moral compass, and self respect as a people. If we were not so completely demoralized we would have paralyzed every city with civil disobedience for the injustices our "leaders" commit. Forgive my bitter tone, but the mentality of servitude fills my mouth with bile.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 


More to the point. If 20 protesters showed up would they arrest them? How about 50. What if a thousand protesters showed up to display their displeasure? Would they arrest the ones in front only or all of them? If 10,000 showed up they might think it's a movement; the screw this progressive crap movement.

Oh, I get it. They want you to write letters instead. Okay, here's a good start.

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."


There we go. Arrest someone for that. If they arrested me for writing that, I guess I'd just have to subpoena the director of the National Archives to verify the statement. Or I'd probably get sued for copyright infringement by the government for using national documents for personal gain.

edit on 11-2-2011 by billxam because: added phrase



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
A "Good" lawyer can successfully beat those Nazis. One poster stated it
wasn't congress that passed that law....SO WHAT! Does Los Angeles,
California not belong to the United States? Protesting is a RIGHT not
a privilege. Wake up people, Egypt can teach the U.S. a thing or two when
it comes to fighting for freedom. I'd sue the S*&# out of the city and state
for allowing such nonsense and put an even bigger dent in their budgets!
That might teach them a lesson for allowing such BS being proposed in the
first place.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   
This is my take on it.

Everybody has a right to assemble and to protest whatever they want, but it is NOT their right to interfere with the lives of everybody else. Not only are they breaking the law, they are also alienating other citizens of the country who might support their cause, but because of the protester's actions all they do is piss people off.

We had some protests here where people were laying down across the entire street downtown, which is pretty much the major artery of the downtown area. These people got arrested and I'm glad. They had traffic blocked up everywhere, what if an ambulance needed to get through? They are just making enemies, not friends of the cause.

Nobody takes you more seriously because your messing things up, a peaceful and organized protest will gain more supporters than those who's goal it is to simply cause problems.

On the other hand, if you are going to protest in a way that interferes with something, at least interfere with the people you are protesting against, the government. Figure out a way to disrupt THEIR day and lives, not the day and lives of average people.
edit on 11-2-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by stephinrazin
 


This isn't a peaceful demonstration you speak of. Your words are those of rebellion. A rebellion is why we have the 2nd amendment, not the first. But know that this can't be taken lightly and failure means jail or death. That is the crux, if we are at the level where our government is illegitimate (I don't think were 100% there yet) and enough people recognize then we get rebellion. Egypt had a mostly peaceful rebellion, they called it a protest but whatever, they deposed a dictator sounds like a rebellion to me...

If they failed there would have been mass consequences. Same is true here. You are able to form a rebellion and enough people agree you might even succeed, but if you don't be ready for the consequences.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by billxam
 





Oh, I get it. They want you to write letters instead. Okay, here's a good start. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.


Now if we could just get 305,689,000 people to sent that to the 537 people in the District of Criminals....



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Hmmm let me guess, The Egyptian protesters should have protested
in the desert where they wouldn't have bothered anyone or gotten any
attention at all eh?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I would think a smaller number of signatures would be sufficient... Maybe 56 would do the trick?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr. D
reply to post by James1982
 


Hmmm let me guess, The Egyptian protesters should have protested
in the desert where they wouldn't have bothered anyone or gotten any
attention at all eh?


That was not a protest, that was a riot. In America, we have the right to protest, which is what the people in the article were claimed to be doing. We do not, on the other hand, have a right to riot.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Rebellion most often involves violent overthrow whilst peaceful unrest need not. I believe that the government we have is illegitimate due to the rejection of the principles from which it was based. Mass civil disobedience need not abolish the institutions, but merely restore them. The idea that we should ignore our rights because those who destroy them say so does not sit well with me. This does not mean we should act wildly, or without recognition of the consequences of our actions. What I mean is refusing to act because of rules set by the power structure will always ensure that the structure remains in power. Until we make a choice like to act as our forefathers did during the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam era we can never expect any changes. I pray that Ron Paul ideology encourages positive changes within existing systems, but I am not naive enough to expect it. Then I ask where is the line in the sand? We have already seen torture, arbitrary arrest, and surveillance state. What more will we let them take?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stephinrazin
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Rebellion most often involves violent overthrow whilst peaceful unrest need not. I believe that the government we have is illegitimate due to the rejection of the principles from which it was based. Mass civil disobedience need not abolish the institutions, but merely restore them. The idea that we should ignore our rights because those who destroy them say so does not sit well with me. This does not mean we should act wildly, or without recognition of the consequences of our actions. What I mean is refusing to act because of rules set by the power structure will always ensure that the structure remains in power. Until we make a choice like to act as our forefathers did during the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam era we can never expect any changes. I pray that Ron Paul ideology encourages positive changes within existing systems, but I am not naive enough to expect it. Then I ask where is the line in the sand? We have already seen torture, arbitrary arrest, and surveillance state. What more will we let them take?


I agree with this. I'm not totally against violent uprisings my any means. But what I am against is people just causing trouble and not accomplishing anything. Target they enemy, not your allies.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The law should allow for "natural consequences."


...so, in your fantasy land, people should be allowed to drive as fast and recklessly as they want or as drunk or high on drugs as they want cuz natural consequences will punish them and keep the rest of us safe... yeah, okay - thats crazy thinking...


Originally posted by getreadyalready
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.


...yikes, thats even worse...

...if they survive their violent stupidity, its highly unlikely they'll smarten up...


Originally posted by getreadyalready
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!


...i lack the testosterone to comprehend that...



Originally posted by getreadyalready
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.


...are you referring to a specific law or all laws in general?... if its the latter, you're exaggerating...


Originally posted by getreadyalready
The laws should not be punitive in nature.


...criminal law has always been punitive...



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by stephinrazin
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


Rebellion most often involves violent overthrow whilst peaceful unrest need not. I believe that the government we have is illegitimate due to the rejection of the principles from which it was based. Mass civil disobedience need not abolish the institutions, but merely restore them. The idea that we should ignore our rights because those who destroy them say so does not sit well with me. This does not mean we should act wildly, or without recognition of the consequences of our actions. What I mean is refusing to act because of rules set by the power structure will always ensure that the structure remains in power. Until we make a choice like to act as our forefathers did during the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam era we can never expect any changes. I pray that Ron Paul ideology encourages positive changes within existing systems, but I am not naive enough to expect it. Then I ask where is the line in the sand? We have already seen torture, arbitrary arrest, and surveillance state. What more will we let them take?


Whether a rebellion is to restore what we once had or to create something new it is a recognition that what we currently have is not what we want as a people and we get a rebellion. That rebellion can be peaceful but it will be unlawful and the rebels will have consequences if they don't win. Anytime you seek to change the structure of power by willfully disobeying laws of the land you are engaging in rebellion. I'm not saying it is wrong, in fact our founding fathers encouraged this as an option. Hell they even did it!

It looks like you have even identified the new first president for the New Republic of The United Sates of America! At this time I will not support the cause but you are speaking about rebellion. I think that it is still possible to reform within the system by obeying the laws of the land. But then I've always been an optimist.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinglelord
 


I wish I had your optimism. I guess I have seen too much, and learned too much. The republic has fallen in all except for name.
As far as rebellion being illegal I challenge that argument in our context. Our Constitution is very clear about many issues. Laws contrary to the Constitution are null and void. They are illegal, and therefore it is not only legal to reject them but a duty to do so. Every citizen should disobey the illegal implementation of codes contrary to the fundamental laws that our government is based on. Do you believe that the torture of citizens deemed terrorists is legal, and that rebellion against the institution participating in such torture is illegal? This argument,, and other like it, seems to put a sanctity on law that is contrary to morality and justice.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 





face up to one year in county jail.


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????



Welcome to the NWO



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

Justice Elena Kagan and Government Restriction on 1st Amendment

I came across this factoid while researching the religion of Genghis Khan, since I seemingly share the same religion with him. Although I disagree with his bastardizing the religion by making it an empire religion instead of leaving it as a nomadic tribal religion.


Tengriism
Originally, the Khazars practiced traditional Turkic shamanism, focused on the celestial god Tengri. The Ashina clan considered themselves to be the chosen people of Tengri, and their leader, the kagan, to be bestowed with power by the sky-god. At some point in the last decades of the 8th century or the early ninth century, the Khazar royalty and nobility converted to Judaism.

Which led me to looking into the background of Justice Elena Kagan. While a tenured professor of law at University of Chicago Law School.

Elena Kagan
In 1996 she wrote an article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine." Kagan argued that government has the right, even considering the First Amendment, to restrict free speech, when it believes the speech is "harmful", as long as the restriction is done with good intentions.

That paper can be found here:
www.scotusblog.com...

When we consider speech that leads to violence or vandalism, then, must we say, "Those people should not be able to speak, because it leads to disruptive behavior?" That would seem to be a reasonable government response with good motive to forbid these people from speaking.

There are numerous examples in the New Testament when an apostle got up to speak, an organized group of Jewish opponents would flood the square, start a riot, and accuse the apostle of starting the riot. The apostle would be beaten, jailed, and forbidden to speak of Jesus specifically, because of the riots. All very reasonable.

Highly organized anti-free speech groups seem to be carrying out these same tactics; such as Mubarak's paid thugs with their horses and camels and molotov cocktails. Was it the speech and assembly of protesters that resulted in 300+ deaths or the government paid thugs?

A couple of recent news articles related to free speech and government repression:
Charges Against Muslim Students Prompt Debate Over Free Speech


Despite Harassment, Peace Activists Vow to Continue Work for Justice
Perhaps the most curious - and potentially revealing - episode among these many actions played out in Memphis, Tennessee. In a bizarre twist, the small group that had assembled there on January 25th was visited by the FBI and local law enforcement, ostensibly to warn them about their own event and stating that they were there for the activists’ own safety. A local media outlet reported on the episode:


When a police SWAT team and an FBI anti-terrorism squad showed up Tuesday at a Memphis church where peace activists were staging an event, a scene reminiscent of the turbulent 1960s ensued. The activists, members of the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center who oppose the war in Afghanistan, characterized the encounter as police intimidation and a case of illegal surveillance. FBI and Memphis Police Department representatives countered it was all a misunderstanding. They said they were there to protect the activists from potential harm by extremists who might oppose their views.



edit on 11-2-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join