Westboro Church gets OWNED

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Ball
I thought americans have lots of guns to deal with people like that?

Scum like them ain't worth doin' serious time for. Overnight for givin' them an bellybutton whoopin' is one thing. Several years for doin's society a favor is another.

The Feds would likely prosecute, local jurusdictions might not prosecute, and probably wouldn't convict. Once that trial was over, the Feds would go for a civil rights violation trial.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Thrawn
If a cop wasn't allowed powers of arrest while out of uniform then I would whole heartedly support cops being able to condemn someones stupid religious practices while out of uniform.

But if they are acting as agents of the government then darn right they shouldn't be able to support or criticize a religion.




As reprehensible as these tards are, if they were physically attacked then they would legally be the victims here.  You don't punish a potential victim by limiting their mobility and speech rights.  You punish the arrest the perpetrators of the attack or attempted attack.  

And no, the cop wasn't just trying to keep them from getting their tulips kicked, he also had a political boon to pick with them vis a vis westborough tards burning a flag in "his" country.

You, and others, keep forgetting that the idiots are inciting a riot by their actions. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to incite a riot. You have to understand that going to a funeral and burning flags, shouting the deceased deserved to die, and carrying signs intended to cause mental anguish simply is NOT peaceful assembly. It doesn't matter that YOU think YOU are intellectually superior by allowing them to do it. What matters is that the general public as a rule, and the families and friends of the deceased in particular, finds the behaviour unacceptable and intolerable. Free speech has limits and consequences, and it certainly has serious consequences in a case like this, where they violate the rights of others. People also have a RIGHT to bury their dead and mourn their passing without being publicly harassed and insulted. And in this case, for any number of reasons, the right of people to bury their dead in peace trumps the right of idiots to incite a riot at the funeral by a long shot. Common sense DOES apply to the Constitution, and it is not a suicide pact.

[lukster]

I thought the sheriff and the crowd exercised great restraint. I'd have had a hard time just not pulling out my gun and shooting every one of them on the spot. I really can't think of many things more despicable than harrassing a family at a funeral.

[Nilsen]

I dont care what you protest against or for.

You DO NOT protest at a funeral period.

[soda72]

Originally posted by Nilsen
I dont care what you protest against or for.

You DO NOT protest at a funeral period.

You would think an incited riot would convince them of that but apparently not.

[Scatcat]

Frankly I think we have taken free speech and turned it into a lisence to verbally assault or insult.  I have no problem with someone getting their butt kicked for clearly asking for it. Besides, if the Westboro church members got there due, based on their own theology, God allowed it.

I agree with free speech, but I also think you should consider the consequences of what you say.

[lazs2]

again...  you are not allowed to work people into a fighting frenzy... this is not free speech.   Insulting people and inciting a riot are not covered by free speech.

lazs

[culero]

Originally posted by Ball
I thought americans have lots of guns to deal with people like that?

We do, but we elect and pay sheriffs to do it in an orderly fashion. We use our guns to deal with emergencies that the sheriff hasn't been able to deal with yet.

Oh, and bugger off, big-nose

culero

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by lazs2
again...  you are not allowed to work people into a fighting frenzy... this is not free speech.   Insulting people and inciting a riot are not covered by free speech.

lazs

I'd like to play devils advocate for a second:

If a group of anti-gun people decide that whenever someone makes a statement in favor of guns, they'll get into a froth and make a huge scene, does that mean that under your interpretation, they can shut down the pro-gun speaker?

The 1st amendment is freedom of speech, not freedom to say inoffensive things.  These scumbags _are_ protected by the bill of rights, and likewise, _we_ have the option of expressing our disagreement by punching them in the face.  

The police in the video are just doing their job, they're protecting.  If they start choosing who they protect based on whether they agree with what they're saying, then that's another step towards government suppression of the bill of rights, inadvertent as it may be.

[Neubob]

Originally posted by Chairboy
I'd like to play devils advocate for a second:

If a group of anti-gun people decide that whenever someone makes a statement in favor of guns, they'll get into a froth and make a huge scene, does that mean that under your interpretation, they can shut down the pro-gun speaker?

The 1st amendment is freedom of speech, not freedom to say inoffensive things.  These scumbags _are_ protected by the bill of rights, and likewise, _we_ have the option of expressing our disagreement by punching them in the face.  

The police in the video are just doing their job, they're protecting.  If they start choosing who they protect based on whether they agree with what they're saying, then that's another step towards government suppression of the bill of rights, inadvertent as it may be.

There is no clear-cut answer to this hypothetical. It is up to the courts to determine constitutional intent in matters where the answer is less than clear. The Consitution was designed with this in mind, and was written with an element of ambiguity in anticipation of future refinement on a case-to-case basis.

That being said, I think one would be hard-pressed to find a midwestern judge that would not opt to silence these church members. You can BS the bill of rights and squeeze your way through any number of loopholes it leaves available, but you will not BS a judge by saying that you're merely exercising your right to free speech by inciting violence at a funeral. If it was their intent to simply protest, they would have picked a setting where that protest wouldn't almost certainly lead to a physical altercation. They opted for the funeral, and thus, their intent is clear.

It takes more than a couple fortune-cookie style quotes from the Bill of Rights to get away with mayhem in this country. Luckily, it's usually the mental midgets that assume that they can do just that.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Regular
lol These fools crack me up.

http://break.com/index/westboro_baptist_church_chased_away.html

http://my.break.com/Media/View.aspx?ContentID=179376

Please dont delete the links. I wonder why they hate America and scream for help from the cops?

That 1st link gave me wood, better than porn.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow, that cop in the second one sure is trying to trump your Constitution and Supreme Court.

I am not one who is afraid to second guess law enforcement tactics, in fact police misconduct makes up about 20% of my work, but I have to say that if that film represents the worst that that sheriff did during that protest, he did a fine job.

shamus

[lazs2]

chair...you missunderstand... you are talking about two completely different things.

You are free under the first to state your opinion about a subject.   That does not make you free to make personal insults to people.   You could say that guns are evil and that they cause damage or even that people who liked them were sick for instance but.... you couldn't just go to a NRA meeting and tell people that their mothers were all potatos say.

You are not covered under the first at swearing at people in a public place.  Of trying to get them to fight.

There is a line... You can protest a war outside a funeral...  but..  if you go to calling the people who are there or who have died names then you cross the line.

I think that the "reasonable man" arguement is the best.   A jury, us, must think about a situation and think "what would a reasonable man do?"

This is perhaps not as black and white as I would like but makes sense of things that can't really be regulated in every little nuance.

You present the case to a jury and they have to ask if the reaction was reasonable or not.  Would a reasonable man break under the circumstances and lose his temper enough to cause harm?

lazs

[Chairboy]

That's a good distinction, works for me Lazs.