Two Dead Police Officers

[Howey]

Where were the right wing protests over the killing of these two [url Police Arrest Fugitive After He Posts Ice Bucket Challenge Video Mediaite officers? [/url]

Is it because they were Bundy supporters?

As more and more details emerge about the Nevada couple who allegedly killed a pair of Las Vegas police officers before killing themselves on Sunday, it becomes clear that they were active supporters of Cliven Bundy, the controversial rancher who came to a standoff with the federal government earlier this year.

The deceased shooters, identified as Jerad and Amanda Miller, apparently have an extensive background in supporting causes like Bundy, the National Rifle Association, and fringe conspiracy theoristAlex Jones. According to police, the shooters draped a “Don’t tread on me” (Gadsden) flag over the bodies of their victims, and declared their spree as part of a “revolution.”

 

[emilynghiem]

Where were the right wing protests over the killing of these two [url Police Arrest Fugitive After He Posts Ice Bucket Challenge Video Mediaite officers? [/url]

Is it because they were Bundy supporters?

As more and more details emerge about the Nevada couple who allegedly killed a pair of Las Vegas police officers before killing themselves on Sunday, it becomes clear that they were active supporters of Cliven Bundy, the controversial rancher who came to a standoff with the federal government earlier this year.

The deceased shooters, identified as Jerad and Amanda Miller, apparently have an extensive background in supporting causes like Bundy, the National Rifle Association, and fringe conspiracy theoristAlex Jones. According to police, the shooters draped a “Don’t tread on me” (Gadsden) flag over the bodies of their victims, and declared their spree as part of a “revolution.”

I guess they were too busy lost in huge crowds protesting black-on-black violence?

 

[Howey]

Where were the right wing protests over the killing of these two [url Police Arrest Fugitive After He Posts Ice Bucket Challenge Video Mediaite officers? [/url]

Is it because they were Bundy supporters?

As more and more details emerge about the Nevada couple who allegedly killed a pair of Las Vegas police officers before killing themselves on Sunday, it becomes clear that they were active supporters of Cliven Bundy, the controversial rancher who came to a standoff with the federal government earlier this year.

The deceased shooters, identified as Jerad and Amanda Miller, apparently have an extensive background in supporting causes like Bundy, the National Rifle Association, and fringe conspiracy theoristAlex Jones. According to police, the shooters draped a “Don’t tread on me” (Gadsden) flag over the bodies of their victims, and declared their spree as part of a “revolution.”

I guess they were too busy lost in huge crowds protesting black-on-black violence?

In Vegas????

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This was already discussed earlier this year. The Bundys kicked this couple off of their ranch once they realized how radical they were, but nonetheless, I agree there is a level of hypocrisy in the conservative defense of Bundy who was breaking federal law while they badmouth people protesting police brutality and murder.

 

[emilynghiem]

I guess they were too busy lost in huge crowds protesting black-on-black violence?

In Vegas????

In sarcasm...

 

[emilynghiem]

This was already discussed earlier this year. The Bundys kicked this couple off of their ranch once they realized how radical they were, but nonetheless, I agree there is a level of hypocrisy in the conservative defense of Bundy who was breaking federal law while they badmouth people protesting police brutality and murder.

You can protest police brutality and violence,
but just don't add the Racism card to it, claiming one side "represents" this race or that race etc.

The BIGGEST hypocrisy is we keep using a political media system
that EXPLOITS labeling people by party, race and stereotype. This is used for points.

And then when it backfires like this, suddenly it's this group's fault or that group that
gets demonized. When all the time, the POLITICIANS benefit from the backbiting and abuse it.

They egg it on for points and votes, and then claim to be against it?
Not fair to the people really suffering, on all sides, to be exploited this way for political gain.

 

[ChrisL]

This was already discussed earlier this year. The Bundys kicked this couple off of their ranch once they realized how radical they were, but nonetheless, I agree there is a level of hypocrisy in the conservative defense of Bundy who was breaking federal law while they badmouth people protesting police brutality and murder.

No one is badmouthing protestors. We ARE, however, badmouthing criminals and looters who use these "protests" as an excuse to be out of control douchebags.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No one is badmouthing protestors.

 

[ChrisL]

No one is badmouthing protestors.

It's true. It's our right to protest but not to destroy and/or steal from other people. That is not protesting.

 

[emilynghiem]

No one is badmouthing protestors.

It's true. It's our right to protest but not to destroy and/or steal from other people. That is not protesting.

It's protesting AND also mixing illegal vandalism and criminal violations as part of the actions.
It's not "free speech" anymore if it is costing people's property and loss of business during restoration work.

So if these people were held to PAY for the costs of their protests, they might learn the difference.

It isn't free to speak before judges and courts when you have to hire a lawyer at 250/hour.
It isn't free speech to pay for million dollar ad time during the Super Bowl.

As the Anonymous group's legal case has brought out, their defense lawyer was arguing
that "reducing or slowing access" to financial websites and transactions was a consequence of "free speech"
but the prosecution argued it was causing financial damage and "wasn't free" but an illegal form of interfering with commerce.

 

[ChrisL]

No one is badmouthing protestors.

It's true. It's our right to protest but not to destroy and/or steal from other people. That is not protesting.

It's protesting AND also mixing illegal vandalism and criminal violations as part of the actions.
It's not "free speech" anymore if it is costing people's property and loss of business during restoration work.

So if these people were held to PAY for the costs of their protests, they might learn the difference.

It isn't free to speak before judges and courts when you have to hire a lawyer at 250/hour.
It isn't free speech to pay for million dollar ad time during the Super Bowl.

As the Anonymous group's legal case has brought out, their defense lawyer was arguing
that "reducing or slowing access" to financial websites and transactions was a consequence of "free speech"
but the prosecution argued it was causing financial damage and "wasn't free" but an illegal form of interfering with commerce.

Agreed. Once they start committing acts of violence and vandalism, it isn't protesting anymore. That is called rioting.

 

[emilynghiem]

No one is badmouthing protestors.

It's true. It's our right to protest but not to destroy and/or steal from other people. That is not protesting.

It's protesting AND also mixing illegal vandalism and criminal violations as part of the actions.
It's not "free speech" anymore if it is costing people's property and loss of business during restoration work.

So if these people were held to PAY for the costs of their protests, they might learn the difference.

It isn't free to speak before judges and courts when you have to hire a lawyer at 250/hour.
It isn't free speech to pay for million dollar ad time during the Super Bowl.

As the Anonymous group's legal case has brought out, their defense lawyer was arguing
that "reducing or slowing access" to financial websites and transactions was a consequence of "free speech"
but the prosecution argued it was causing financial damage and "wasn't free" but an illegal form of interfering with commerce.

Agreed. Once they start committing acts of violence and vandalism, it isn't protesting anymore. That is called rioting.

It boils down to the Golden Rule and applying that to Civil Laws.
To petition or protest for more consistent Law Enforcement, we need Civil Obedience, not disobedience.

If you want due process of law, you can't very well violate due process of law to protest.
Just like officers are taught you cannot break the very laws you are trying to enforce.
The same should go for citizens, and also corporations criticized for blurring grey areas of law.
We should all take the same vows to uphold the Constitution as seriously as our Vets and Police
so we have a mutual commitment and respect, a civil contract we all agree to follow in spirit.

I once wrote a letter published in a campus paper, following the response to students
claiming they were exercising their free speech, but disrupted a formal ceremony on campus.
Basically the First Amendment cannot be abused to "yell fire in a crowded theatre"
without violating the rest of the Amendment that ensures "the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble." If you disrupt the peace by creating a breach, that is violating the spirit of the same law; taking parts out of context with the whole. My point was there is a natural limit on free exercise/free speech by using this law to check itself.

Again, if you want free speech and due process, by the Golden Rule, this means to respect the same for others. Somehow we are not learning or teaching this, but setting very poor examples.

I can only worry for the kids who are told not to bully, while surrounded by adults who do this for a living as what we've turned the media and political process into. No wonder kids and now full grown adults are so disillusioned with authority, and have lost respect. Without consistency, it seems the laws say one thing and everyone does another. How can we enforce laws or raise kids in such an environment? Crazy making!

============

...one might expect advocates of First Amendment rights and freedoms to
show the same respect for "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
by refraining from speech or actions that would deliberately cause a breach
of the peace and disrupt a public assembly.
...
The example quoted was "yelling fire in a crowded theater." In this case,
it could be argued that the chanting and other jacks during matriculation
temporarily abridged other people's freedom of speech and right to assemble peaceably.
...
I believe that the First Amendment can be quite effective
when interpreted in a way that checks itself, which I recommend here.

http www.houstonprogressive.org "Letter to the Editor, Rice Thresher, 1995"

 

[ClosedCaption]

No one is badmouthing protestors.

It's true. It's our right to protest but not to destroy and/or steal from other people. That is not protesting.

I like this new fad where you call rioters protestors and vice versa

 

[ChrisL]

No one is badmouthing protestors.

It's true. It's our right to protest but not to destroy and/or steal from other people. That is not protesting.

I like this new fad where you call rioters protestors and vice versa

Sorry that you can't handle the truth, but looting and rioting is not protesting. The below is just common sense, one would think. Apparently not though. How sad that some of you are SO ignorant that I have to TEACH you the difference.

The Difference Between Protesting Rioting Officer.com

With that all said, I type this blog entry today to voice my objection to calling RIOTERS protesters. I LIKE, appreciate and agree with a citizen's First Amendment right of peaceful gathering and protest. The key word in that sentence, though, is peaceful. Once a 'protester' breaks the law or disobeys a lawful order then a crime has been committed. Protesters don't break the law. RIOTERS break the law.

Now I can just imagine some readers asking, "Does it really make a difference what we call them?" My answer is an absolute YES it does. Words and labels carry weight.

Protesting is an inalienable right, recognizd by the Constitution. RIOTING is a crime. Referring to rioters as protesters infers that their actions aren't criminal when, in fact, they are. When law enforcement professionals take action against protesters then we are seen as government agents oppressing the people. When law enforcement professionals arrest rioters, vandals and looters, we are seen as protecting lives and property; doing our job and justified in it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No one is badmouthing protestors.

It's true. It's our right to protest but not to destroy and/or steal from other people. That is not protesting.

I like this new fad where you call rioters protestors and vice versa

Sorry that you can't handle the truth, but looting and rioting is not protesting. The below is just common sense, one would think. Apparently not though. How sad that some of you are SO ignorant that I have to TEACH you the difference.

The Difference Between Protesting Rioting Officer.com

Thanks but thats the point. You claimed that PROTESTORS were LOOTING.

 

[ChrisL]

No one is badmouthing protestors.

It's true. It's our right to protest but not to destroy and/or steal from other people. That is not protesting.

I like this new fad where you call rioters protestors and vice versa

Sorry that you can't handle the truth, but looting and rioting is not protesting. The below is just common sense, one would think. Apparently not though. How sad that some of you are SO ignorant that I have to TEACH you the difference.

The Difference Between Protesting Rioting Officer.com

Thanks but thats the point. You claimed that PROTESTORS were LOOTING.

No I didn't. I said no one was badmouthing protesters, just the looters and rioters. You are trying to be clever but failing miserably. Lol.