Has NC crossed the line?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Every time I see something like this it makes me want to explode in the worst of ways, if the government continues the way they are going; they are surely going to get what they so justly deserve one day. In my opinion the state of NC has crossed the line. I hope that a jury of 12 will help ease my mind a bit, but at the rate the law makers are going and knowing how sleepy and lazy some people are when it comes political things, I have my doubts...

ProtesterTried "found guilty"?

This story right here and many more to come later is showing just how far our elected officials are willing to go to maintain control over us.

In my opinion this is a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

1st Amendment - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

For those that don't know the difference: Here's an image...


edit on 10/5/2013 by Shdak because: spelling




posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Shdak
 


I read the article. I remember the protests from the 60's. I am sure the lawmakers remember those times also. I am not sure how it works when the people you are protesting against get to make the rules. Is that the new world idea of democracy?



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Forgive me.. but what is the outrage about here? As I am reading the story here...Arrest wasn't secondary but the deliberate goal of the protesters. They literally lined up, patiently and non-violently to BE arrested. Insane...but then, for some crazy reason...people have come to think being arrested and booked is a constructive thing to have happen.


More than 940 people were arrested during the 2013 legislative session, which saw North Carolina take a sharp rightward turn as Republicans exerted control over the General Assembly and the governor's mansion for the first time in more than a century.

The "Moral Monday" protests were organized by the state branch of the NAACP and included a coalition of left-leaning groups opposed to GOP-backed bills they saw as damaging to working people, low income families, public education and the environment. The protests were uniformly no violent, with dozens of people typically waiting patiently in line to be arrested and handcuffed by police.

So far, only about two dozen protesters have taken Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby up on his offer to defer prosecution in exchange for community service. Charges against a journalist swept up in the police dragnet were dismissed.
(Your link)

Did the protesters and the NAACP just assume that they could do this, be arrested (by free willing choice) and then, somehow, it would all go away because they cooperated? It would just be like it never happened and the arrests weren't for something?

Er..... I wish it worked that way. 10's of thousands in the Occupy movement carrying arrest records and more, sure wish it happened that way?

Still, this reports these protesters basically got what they demanded to get. They're even offered community service to work off what they lined up to be arrested for?? How can we be mad when a martyr gets their wish? I'm not trying to be snarky...it's the literal situation as it reads here?



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Shdak
 


Perhaps you should be enraged at our legal system. A jury of his peers found him guilty under the law.
The article even explains why.


Though the protesters were non-violent, General Assembly Police Chief Jeff Weaver said their singing, clapping and chanting was quite loud and had the potential to disrupt the work of the elected officials. By protesting in the second-floor rotunda outside the tall golden doors leading to the Senate and House, Weaver said lawmakers were forced to use other entrances to the chambers.

The chief also testified that he had reasons to be concerned for the safety of legislators and workers in the building because he recognized known anarchists, occupiers and people with criminal records among the hundreds of protesters.


Are you upset at this mans verdict, or the Law he was protesting?



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
Forgive me.. but what is the outrage about here?


My point is not about who was arrested, its about the Constitutional Right. This is why I said I hope a jury of 12 may ease my mind a bit.

We have so many pointless laws that have eaten away at the Constitution it just makes me sick, The way I read the 1st amendment shows we have rights to do these sort of things.

peaceably assembled: there was no fighting, no destruction or property, or anything like it...
freedom of speech: they exercised their rights again
petition of grievances: expressing their rights again

so, what did these people do that was against the law? I know they broke the so called state laws, but looking at the Constitution, those laws would be null and void... since when did state laws start overriding the Constitutional Rights?



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   

network dude
reply to post by Shdak
 


Perhaps you should be enraged at our legal system. A jury of his peers found him guilty under the law.
The article even explains why.


What? This is what I was referring to in the article...


Muammad's lawyer, Al McSurely, gave immediate notice of appeal. Under state law, Muammad, 68, will now have the option of having his case heard in Superior Court before a jury of 12.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Shdak
 

Oh I understand that and I comment here because it's an intriguing topic. I faced this on the working end with a few million others during Occupy.

The thing is...I'm thinking back to the plans and direct action meetings we had at camp in St Louis for how I'd think of what they did here. We discussed protesting the Federal Reserve Bank with an attitude (It was within blocks of our camp)...and concluded we'd all be in jail and perhaps federal charges .... Protest would end. Nothing accomplished. We discussed protesting other federal facilities in the St Louis area that aren't even as well known on tourist maps as the Fed. Same thing......and state houses are no different.

Same result though? We all would have been arrested, camp would have been thrown into a dumpster with any left behind, arrested in ugly ways, probably.....and everything we were trying to accomplish would have died on the spot to accomplish ...one protest.

That's what I think of on this one. They broke the law...freely, knowingly and willingly. So willingly, they lined up in a nice que to be handcuffed. Now they choose to reject any offers to avoid jail time by community service (not a bad offer when you, again, broke the law with eyes wide open ..then asked for arrest).

If they want to be a martyr... so be it. Thats a bad way to lose and how many in the NAACP who organized this are also looking at cases on them? I COULD be wrong, but I'm guessing the "Generals" weren't getting booked with their protesting troops. I'm also betting they aren't facing jail at this point, either. Not the ones who thought it up and put it together.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Shdak
 


You missed the fact that we no longer have the RIGHT TO PROTEST. And it was the REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS and OBAMA that removed that right! So isn't it about time we figured out it is the elite and their bought and paid for politicians against the rest of us. SEE: America’s Ruling Class

Congress recently passed a law (only three did not vote for it) that removed our First Amendment rights.
Anti-Occupy" law ends American's right to protest




Thanks to almost zero media coverage, few of us know about a law passed this past March, severely limiting our right to protest. The silence may have been due to the lack of controversy in bringing the bill to law: Only three of our federal elected officials voted against the bill’s passage. Yes, Republicans and Democrats agreed on something almost 100%.

... The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees us the rights of free speech and assembly. A fundamental purpose of our free speech guarantee is to invite dispute. Protests can and have been the catalyst for positive change. Thus while we despise that protestors can burn our flag as protected political speech, and we hate that Neo-Nazis can march down our streets, we recognize the rights of these groups to do what they do and we send our troops across the world to fight for these rights.

Last year’s “occupy movement” scared the government. On March 8, President Obama signed a law that makes protesting more difficult and more criminal. The law is titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, and it passed unanimously in the Senate and with only three “no” votes in the House. It was called the “Trepass Bill” by Congress and the “anti-Occupy law” by everyone else who commented.

The law “improves” public grounds by forcing people - protestors - elsewhere. It amends an older law that made it a federal crime to “willfully and knowingly” enter a restricted space. Now you will be found guilty of this offense if you simply “knowingly” enter a restricted area, even if you did not know it was illegal to do so.

The Department of Homeland Security can designate an event as one of “national significance,” making protests or demonstrations near the event illegal.
The law makes it punishable by up to ten years in jail to protest anywhere the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting,” or anywhere they might be guarding someone. Does the name Secret tell you anything about your chances of knowing where they are? The law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.” You can no longer heckle or “boo” at a political candidate’s speech, as that would be disruptive.

After you swallow all of this and correctly conclude that it is now very easy to be prosecuted for virtually any public protest, you should brace yourself and appreciate that it is even worse. Today, any event that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event has Secret Service protection.

This can include sporting events and concerts.
The timing of the law was not coincidental. The bill was presented to the Senate, after House passage, on November 17, 2011, during an intense nationwide effort to stop the Occupy Wall Street protests.

....If you want to protest a politician speaking to a crowd now, you can do so maybe a half mile or so away.....


Seems we are rapidly loosing our country and in case you think it is by happenstance I suggest you read what Pascal Lamy has written.

Lamy was the Director-General of the World Trade Organization and he makes it clear we have a government full of traitors to the Constitution.

Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?




The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty


Note that the elite have been working on destroying US sovereignty since the 1930's!


....Over the past 70 years we have constructed the legal and institutional framework to manage closer economic integration at the regional and global level... Yet, with the world becoming ever more interconnected and challenges become truly global, governance remains to a large extent local.

The discrepancy between the reality of today’s interdependence, the challenges resulting from it, and the capacity of governments to agree politically on how to deal with them is striking. For the international system is founded on the principle and politics of national sovereignty: the Wesphalian order of 1648 remains very much alive in the international architecture today.

In the absence of a truly global government, global governance results from the action of sovereign States. It is inter-national. Between nations....
In fact, the Wesphalian order is a challenge in itself. The recent crisis has demonstrated it brutally. Local politics has taken the upper hand over addressing global issues. Governments are too busy dealing with domestic issues to dedicate sufficient attention and energy to multilateral negotiations, be they trade negotiations or climate negotiations.

I see four main challenges for global governance today....


The Bretton Woods system is the IMF and World Bank brought into being by the Soviet Spy Harry Dexter White while he worked in the Treasury Department.

Lamy goes further into the idea of the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty

“Global governance requires localising global issues” — Lamy

I suggest that you read what Lamy has written on 'Global Governance' if you want to understand US politics.



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Now you did it!!!, haven't thought about that stuff in awhile... you just raised my boiling point another 2° higher



posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 



You missed the fact that we no longer have the RIGHT TO PROTEST.


We have NEVER had the right to protest just anywhere we feel like it for property and business areas.

We have NEVER had the right to just freely break laws to protest.

..and when that DOES happen, we're expected to put on the grown up pants and take the consequence from it like adults. Not whine that there IS consequence as if it's the first time the thought crossed someone's mind. (rolls eyes)

If people can't take the outcome, don't even show up. This kind of thing, in my personal view, does more to totally lose the respect of the average american sitting at home watching news, than anything else could after the protest has happened.

Those average folks are who the protest is supposed to be about gaining support and sympathy from ...not smirks and derisive comments about how people ought to consider their actions before doing them.

Protest and arrest is a noble thing in our system ...if the cause is good (perspective on that one) and the willingness to SACRIFICE a little bit for whatever that cause IS ..is sincere. If people want the glory but want to dodge out the backdoor on the OTHER side of that? screw 'em.

Just my view on this 'new breed' of protester that figures TV time getting arrested should mean all is forgiven when the camera is turned off. Wow..That IS something a bit new for entitlement attitude, if one could call it that.





top topics
 
2

log in

join