Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Damn boy, that pot has you messed up.As we will pretend you have a functioning mind. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to take over public or private property or resist lawful orders by LE. And so far, no one has provided any evidence that the orders were unlawful. Feelings aren't evidence.
Where were they "taking over"? They can protest in a public street and sidewalks, that is allowed under the First Amendment. You just don't want people you disagree with expressing their views.
That would imply common sense, something that this generation is sorely lacking!What trial are you referring to? Who claimed that all lawsuits are won by the plaintiffs?
In the original posting there’s a link to the story via AP and reprinted at WND.com that reported a federal lawsuit had been filed by five plaintiffs alleging the use of excessive force and of false arrest. That’s all.
For a number of reasons it’s unlikely this type of action would ever see the inside of a courtroom. But I digress.
I posed a bit of a summation about this issue with a couple of questions a bi earlier I’d like to share with you as well, Iceweasel.
“Regarding the lawsuit by itself, certainly the 40M dollar amount seems excessive at first glance. I’m not litigious by nature, I’m sure you’re not either, (nor are most Americans for that matter) and as such we collectively tend to look at anyone suing another for large dollar amounts with great suspicion. I’m not even arguing such suspicions are completely unwarranted.
That stated, taking one of the plaintiff’s allegations as an example, what would be the correct amount of remuneration owed a citizen if it’s proved in a court of law she and her son actually were roughed up and unlawfully arrested for not evacuating a McDonald’s quickly enough?
Obviously that will have to be proven in a court of law, but as an intellectual and empathetic exercise, assuming the allegations are proven true what would you ask for in compensation for the physical violence, the emotional trauma, and the unlawful arrest inflicted upon you and your son?
To put it mildly, I wouldn’t be happy about it. A lawsuit might very well be an option I would exercise”.
I’m not so certain that “only” five individuals jointly filing a federal lawsuit at this time speaks volumes; it only really speaks for itself. Have you found a news link somewhere outlining a law firm actively soliciting individuals to join a class action suit? While it’s certainly possible, I haven’t seen anything like that. This appears to be only what it appears to be.
I.e. These are the five people alleging a number of legal and civil rights violations and are seeking remedy through the courts.
If their claims are baseless or factually unsupportable they’ll end up with nothing. As they should.
If however the claims are true, they have every right to seek damages. Both compensatory and punitive.
You don’t agree? If you were in their circumstance, what would you do?
First of all, I wouldn't have put myself OR my child in that position. "Oh sorry son there are rioters and looters out and about, well eat at home tonight, let the police get things under control then go to McD"
What would you have had them do? Use the snipers? machine guns?I don't think the police department used near enough force.
If I owned a business in Ferguson, I would be suing the city, for the police department, not being allowed to do their jobs and protect my business. And, I suspect some insurance companies are looking into that already.
No, I don't want malcontents blocking access to public and private pathways. Your rights stop where another's begins.
The government is a privilege provided by the people. You are as clear as mud, you can't take over public or private property. The right to assemble doesn't mean anywhere, anytime. Go to the park, don't block streets or sidewalks.No, I don't want malcontents blocking access to public and private pathways. Your rights stop where another's begins.
Nope. You don't have a constitutional right to drive a car. That's a privelege provided by the government. People do have a constitutional right to assemble and express their grivances towards the government. That includes anything public. 1st amendment jurisprudence is clear on this.
The government is a privilege provided by the people. You are as clear as mud, you can't take over public or private property. The right to assemble doesn't mean anywhere, anytime. Go to the park, don't block streets or sidewalks.
No, you don't. Just like the Second Amendment doesn't allow anyone to own any firearm and carry it anywhere anytime. Do you think the KKK has the right to assemble and protest at a rap concert?The government is a privilege provided by the people. You are as clear as mud, you can't take over public or private property. The right to assemble doesn't mean anywhere, anytime. Go to the park, don't block streets or sidewalks.
Not private property, but they can assemble on public property and the government can't ban them from doing it. I don't think you truly understand the First Amendment.
Damn boy, that pot has you messed up.As we will pretend you have a functioning mind. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to take over public or private property or resist lawful orders by LE. And so far, no one has provided any evidence that the orders were unlawful. Feelings aren't evidence.
Where were they "taking over"? They can protest in a public street and sidewalks, that is allowed under the First Amendment. You just don't want people you disagree with expressing their views.
In case you didn't notice, or maybe you did, you were probably right in the middle of them, taking televisions, electronics, cigarettes, liquor, and anything else that wasn't nailed down. How is that new tv working for you anyway? Shame the police didn't shoot to kill, like they should have, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
How about arresting somebody when you see them walking out of a store, with their face wrapped up, and carrying an armload of goods.What would you have had them do? Use the snipers? machine guns?I don't think the police department used near enough force.
If I owned a business in Ferguson, I would be suing the city, for the police department, not being allowed to do their jobs and protect my business. And, I suspect some insurance companies are looking into that already.
