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.

 

Fallen Marine's father says anti-gay pickets will draw gunfire

page: 13
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
Why then is verbal abuse considered a "Hate Crime" ?


Fine, watch.

ATS members are gay and going to hell.

Now, sue me for a hate crime. See how far that goes.




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
One day, that Westboro group is going to have a terrible tragedy.

You don't go around prodding folks all the time at the worst possible moments or events, and think that everyone will tolerate that kind of $*!* without anyone every deciding that enough is enough.

Free speech? Fine.

You pull that hated crap at the funeral of one of mine, I'll very possibly arrange some of your funerals. Burning a flag - which is an action - is classified as free speech.

Arranging additional funerals of these hateful bastards - an action - is . . . . MY freedom of expression.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
ive said this before about WBC

im joining the Marine Corp, two of my best friends from childhood are already Marines fighting overseas for either of them were killed and the WBC protested at there funeral i would drop one of them and not care what things would come of it or the law suit that the scum bags would bring

im all for the freedom of speech and the freedom to protest or anything in the constitution but what Phelps and his minion followers are doing to these poor families and to the gay/lesbian, jewish and what ever other communities they protest against is digusting and they should not be allowed to spew there hatred


SMR

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Epiphron

Originally posted by SMR
Why then is verbal abuse considered a "Hate Crime" ?


Fine, watch.

ATS members are gay and going to hell.

Now, sue me for a hate crime. See how far that goes.

That doesn't answer my question.


Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
And as it was mentioned already, they didn't even know WBC was there until they saw it on the news!

Go read the article again. I already corrected the user who said that in the first place.



"When my son died, I knew two days ahead of time that they were coming," Snyder said. "I had other children that I had to worry about that didn't know what was going on."

"Because of (the protesters') presence, I had police coming out of the woodwork, I had sheriffs. I had a SWAT team. I had emergency vehicles. I had media coming in," Snyder said. "All I wanted to do was have a private dignified funeral for my son.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
reply to post by Common Scarecrow
 


You are comparing private property with public property. If someone truely wants a private funeral, then in must take place on privately owned property. And as it was mentioned already, they didn't even know WBC was there until they saw it on the news! How have any rights been trampled. How was thier mourning affected at said funural?
edit on 3/4/2011 by LordBaskettIV because: (no reason given)


If the family didn't know that the group was there protesting then I don't know what all the hub-bub is about and I agree with you.

As far as I know, cemetaries ARE private property.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Verbal abuse is not a hate crime, it is verbal abuse.

Verbal abuse is the use of words to cause harm to the person being spoken to. It is difficult to define and may take many forms. Similarly, the harm caused is often difficult to measure. The most commonly understood form is name-calling. Verbal abuse may consist of shouting, insulting, intimidating, threatening, shaming, demeaning, or derogatory language, among other forms of communication.
Perpetrators of verbal abuse often misuse their authority and prey on those in a subordinate position. Victims of verbal abuse are often told they are to blame for the abuser's behavior and reluctant to take action to end the abuse. Verbal abuse may lead to stress, depression, physical ailments, and other damage.



On hate crime

Currently, hate crimes are prosecuted under § 245 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. Section 245 protects individuals from violence only on the basis of race, religion, national origin, and color. This law does not protect individuals on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or disability.


According to US law, no hate crime has been commited as there was no VIOLENCE. I can make fun gay people, straight people, men, women, mental retards, downs syndrome, paraplegics,ect and it would not be a hate crime. However you could try to prove verbal abuse in court. But the burden of proof would lie on you. If it just hurt your feelings it would be tossed out of court. In the US, hate crime REQUIRES a VIOLENT act. Or, no hate crime has been commited(although a regular crime such as assault is not a hate crime until race ect is brought into the normal crime).


The only other federal law in existence which addresses prosecution of hate crimes against LGBT people is the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act (Sec. 28003 of the Violent Crime Control Act and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). This Act increases the sentence an offender receives, on average, by one-third, for crimes which are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to manifest prejudice against a member of a protected class. However, federal law enforcement agencies do not have jurisdiction over these anti-LGBT hate crimes unless the occur on federal property, such as a national park. Without jurisdiction they cannot investigate and prosecute those committing anti-gay crimes.





As far as I know, cemetaries ARE private property.


They are, And the WBC was on public property.
edit on 3/4/2011 by LordBaskettIV because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The members of Westboro may be crazy but they're not stupid. They know that members of the armed forces put their lives on the line every day to protect our freedoms, one of which is the freedom of speech. So how do the members of Westboro re-pay the men and women who are affording them the right to have freedom of speech? By protesting the funeral of one who died to protect their freedoms simply based on his sexual orientation. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. They probably even know THAT too. I don't hate them, I feel pity for them.

If I were a simple man, like the members of Westboro seem to be, it would look to me like they are protesting the gay soldiers death as if they pissed off that he died. Which in turn would tell me that the members of Westboro loves homosexuals.

I wonder if the fallen marine was a sniper?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
We are discussing the right to protest, and why it is unlawful to trample those specific rights to protest on public property.


And I'm pointing out the fact that Americans who claim to want freedom, cite the First Amendment, and realign ''freedom'' to fit their personal views, are hypocritical fantasists/opportunists with other agendas.


Originally posted by muzzleflash
You are going way off topic and bringing up totally different subjects and trying to derail this conversation by baiting others into unrelated debates.


I have never veered away from the topic.

The laws in the US that I bring up, ''piss on your bonfire'', so to speak - pardon my French - but you know that what I post makes others aware of the misuse of the Constitution that many Americans cower behind !



Originally posted by muzzleflash
Rather than an analogy, you are employing derailment tactics.


I'm sorry if the truth ''derails'' your agenda.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
That doesn't answer my question.


You're saying that what they did was a hate crime. I just did the equivalent. So why don't you consider my words a hate crime?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sempul
 


sign me up if they come back to northern california!!!



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by donatellanator
Everyone is so angry over this. What they are doing may be morally wrong, but NOT Constitutionally.

That is why KKK rallies still go on in plain sight. Yes, we can be upset over the injustice of ignorance, BUT it does us no good to quash it. Or to heighten it with violence or threats.


Use WB as an example on how not to be... They will understand once they die what they have done wrong.

It's not our right to judge. If all of you here feel so strongly, follow the church wherever they go and picket them. They list everywhere they'll be to entice such an act...


The key word...Morally Wrong....Nothing Constitutional should be Morally wrong...it is a contradiction and an obvious loophole for the wrong doers of the world...Whether they are a religious organization, an average citizen or the President of the US. Morally Wrong is Morally Wrong!

AND...don't talk to me about Patriotism and War and Serving your Country...because that is someone else's agenda....I'm sure you all have seen a lot of morally wrong...does that make it right?....No!...

We are mass manipulated...what are you fighting for? ....Trumped up charges..on some false flag op...We are people throughout the world....regular Moms, Dads, kids...we don't want to fight...only The Powers in Charge want to fight for their own greedy agenda!
edit on 4-3-2011 by blazenresearcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by blazenresearcher
 


Morals are based on opinion, nothing else. Crime is based on fact, such as damages or harm being commited on something. If there is no damage, then no crime has been commited...morals be damned.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
the obvious solution to this is for the famlies to sue the WBC in civil court for emotional distress every jury in this country would award these families millions ....bankrupting WBC and it would be over.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
reply to post by blazenresearcher
 


Morals are based on opinion, nothing else. Crime is based on fact, such as damages or harm being commited on something. If there is no damage, then no crime has been commited...morals be damned.


Sounds like you have no basis of morals...or maybe decency. Morals are not opinion...they are fact! If we are to survive on this planet, we need compassion,respect and decency (which involves a sense of morals)..without it...there is no chance...Why the hell should we even remain living on this planet together if all there is....is greed and hate and disrepect and dehumanizing and suffering...I don't want that world!



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


No, it would be kicked out of court

To prove intentional emotional distress, the plaintiff must show: 1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. The definition of outrageous is subjective, but it should be more than mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, or petty oppressions. It has been generally defined as conduct which would cause a reasonable person to exclaim "Outrageous!" An example would be falsely informing a person that a close family member had been killed.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   


Selective invocation of the First Amendment in the modern-day is the order of the day from some on this thread.


Yes it is. You can see it in the posts of people expressing their hatred of the WBC while wanting to take away the same right of the WBC to express their hatred. Those wanting to assault, break a leg, shoot etc... someone for standing on the street with signs and expressing unpopular views.




It's not my intention to twist this debate into something that it isn't.

I only bring up child pornography because the legislation that surrounds it in the US completely goes against the First Amendment of your Constitution.Yet, there is never a word of dissent against the legislation, because the rulings are based on moral indignation rather than the freedom that is supposedly outlined in the US Constitution.

There have been a number of threads on ATS about this ruling regarding the WBC protests, and many people have been quick to offer supporting arguments for this church's right to assemble or protest. Most of these arguments have been centred around the wording and legal interpretation of the First Amendment. Similar arguments could be used to ''justify'' possession of child pornography.


In the case of child pornography a crime has been committed, in the case of WBC there has been no crime. The comparison fails. Whether of not pictures of a murder are also illegal to possess is irrelevant. The debate on if child porn laws violate the 1st amendment is also irrelevant.




Yet, moral indignation makes owning child pornography an accepted crime amongst the same vociferous proponents of the First Amendment...


You don't know what people here on this thread believe about child porn laws, other than the acknowledgment that possession is illegal, because they haven't been debated. You're merely making an assumption.

Voicing your hate for the behavior of the WBC is protected by the same laws and constitution that protects them. In order to stifle them you must also stifle yourself.

I would much rather live in a world where I must occasionally put up with the stupidity of others than one where everything is sanitized and politically correct. Without question.
edit on 4-3-2011 by Primordial because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by blazenresearcher
 


I treat others as I expect them to treat me, my beliefs never come into play or I would be nothing more than an animal ruled by it's base emotions. I think abortion is murder, does that give me the moral right to treat them as subhuman? No, I give them just as much repect as I would the Dali Llama. I have NO RIGHT to judge others, maybe you should try it it sometime.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBaskettIV
 

1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.
well duh!!! isnt that exactly what these folks are doing to the mourning families?
arent they also infringing on their right to privacy?

when the ladies book club carries very loudly next door and it gets late what do you do when they refuse to simmer down? do you call the cops?
there are laws that are made specifically to protect ones right to privacy and peace. theses laws limit your speech by saying yes you can say what you please but not at the moment people are sleeping...
then why not.. yes you can protest WBC but not right now people are mourning...come back in a couple of hours.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
As far as I know, if yelling "FIRE", in a crowded theater in not protected speach, then it must follow that neither is inciting a riot which is exactly what these people are doing. I'm suprised that noone has clipped them yet.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
on the child porn crap...
the law specifically includes the possession or fabrication or distribution of child pornography is forbidden.
it is not illegal to have pictures of murders unless it is some way interferes with an ongoing police investigation. once they are public domain though they are free game... although having such things are pretty disturbing...

this is just my point of view..i am a trained law enforcement officer and i have been educated in the law and have degrees to prove it.
i am not stating that my opinion is the actual law it is just my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join