Two people that do not understand free speech

[peach174]

The camera woman was trying to stop a crime. She got her clothing spray painted which constitutes assault.

Agreed. How is it assault to attempt to stop a crime in progress?

Glad Eltahawy was charged. Of course she still doesn't get it. She thinks it is her right as an American to deface the property of others.

For starters, the camerawoman isn't a police officer. Additionally, saying she was assaulted is like saying I assaulted you if you ran in to me and fell down.

Holy moley, no wonder we are going down the tubes as a nation.
It is your duty as a Citizen to stop a non violent crime any way you can until the Police arrive.

 

[Polk]

Agreed. How is it assault to attempt to stop a crime in progress?

Glad Eltahawy was charged. Of course she still doesn't get it. She thinks it is her right as an American to deface the property of others.

For starters, the camerawoman isn't a police officer. Additionally, saying she was assaulted is like saying I assaulted you if you ran in to me and fell down.

What does that have to do with anything?

The camerawoman is a citizen who attempted to stop a crime in progress. You don't have to be a police officer to do that. And who did I say was assaulted?

If she could stop it without the use of force, that's true. However, to conduct a citizen's arrest, the other party would have needed to be committing a felony.

Other posters in this thread have claimed the camerawoman was assaulted.

 

[Polk]

It is against the law to deface a sign.
She can just as easily get her own sign to put up.
Why would she be supporting a group violent people, who wants to kill all Jews and Christian's and anyone who will not conform to Islam?

And what evidence is there she supports any group advocating violence?

However improper her method, she is correct to denounce a message portraying all Muslims as violent and hateful, as that’s clearly not the case.

She is not correct to deface the property of others and then be unwilling to accept the consequences of committing the crime.

That is cowardly.

He already said her act of vandalism was improper. That doesn't mean her motives were.

 

[CMike]

At least she got arrested for hopefully vandalism and assault.

 

[Polk]

Agreed. How is it assault to attempt to stop a crime in progress?

Glad Eltahawy was charged. Of course she still doesn't get it. She thinks it is her right as an American to deface the property of others.

For starters, the camerawoman isn't a police officer. Additionally, saying she was assaulted is like saying I assaulted you if you ran in to me and fell down.

Holy moley, no wonder we are going down the tubes as a nation.
It is your duty as a Citizen to stop a non violent crime any way you can until the Police arrive.

No, you have a (ethical) duty to stop a violent crime if you can (self-defense or self-defense on behalf of a third party as justifications), but there is no legal or moral duty to engage in direct activity to stop a non-violent offense. That's what we have police for. The alternative is having people take the exercise of police power in to their own hands.

 

[Polk]

At least she got arrested for hopefully vandalism and assault.

The only person who even arguably committed assault is the camerawoman.

 

[Jackson]

Defacing public property is a crime. All is well that ends well. There was no assault on either person unless you consider the woman intentionally spray painting something when someone is in your way of aim and a camera woman touching another with the arm of her camera. No injuries on either party. The issue is moot.

 

[peach174]

It is against the law to deface a sign.
She can just as easily get her own sign to put up.
Why would she be supporting a group violent people, who wants to kill all Jews and Christian's and anyone who will not conform to Islam?

And what evidence is there she supports any group advocating violence?

However improper her method, she is correct to denounce a message portraying all Muslims as violent and hateful, as that’s clearly not the case.

No one is portraying all Muslims as violent and hateful. Jihads are the ones who are killing Innocent people.
The sign does not say all Muslims, it does not say one word about Muslims.
It Say's civilized man and the savage.
She is supporting the savage, who still lives in the year 700ad

 

[Amelia]

And what evidence is there she supports any group advocating violence?

However improper her method, she is correct to denounce a message portraying all Muslims as violent and hateful, as that’s clearly not the case.

She is not correct to deface the property of others and then be unwilling to accept the consequences of committing the crime.

That is cowardly.

He already said her act of vandalism was improper. That doesn't mean her motives were.

How many nutbars do you defend because they meant well in their twisted sense of morals?

She wanted to get away with defacing property with no consequences. As she was being taken away she was badmouthing the America system which wouldn't let her just stand there and commit the crime.

If she was actually trying to get arrested to draw attention to a legitimate cause by committing a crime she was willing to take the consequences for, I could respect that.

But then when she not only was unwilling to accept the consequences but also put the American system down because officers were enforcing the law ...


Cravenly.

 

[Amelia]

Defacing public property is a crime. All is well that ends well.

Exactly. The person committing the crime was arrested. The right thing was done.

 

[peach174]

What was scary, was her thinking that she did nothing wrong because she wasn't hurting anyone.
She said that several times.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is against the law to deface a sign.
She can just as easily get her own sign to put up.
Why would she be supporting a group violent people, who wants to kill all Jews and Christian's and anyone who will not conform to Islam?

And what evidence is there she supports any group advocating violence?

However improper her method, she is correct to denounce a message portraying all Muslims as violent and hateful, as that’s clearly not the case.

The sign says Stop jihad, not stop Muslims.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For starters, the camerawoman isn't a police officer. Additionally, saying she was assaulted is like saying I assaulted you if you ran in to me and fell down.

What does that have to do with anything?

The camerawoman is a citizen who attempted to stop a crime in progress. You don't have to be a police officer to do that. And who did I say was assaulted?

If she could stop it without the use of force, that's true. However, to conduct a citizen's arrest, the other party would have needed to be committing a felony.

Other posters in this thread have claimed the camerawoman was assaulted.

In some jurisdictions the action of spraying her with paint would be assault. I am not sure exactly what the law says about this in New York though, so it might not be assault.

 

[bobcollum]

It is against the law to deface a sign.
She can just as easily get her own sign to put up.
Why would she be supporting a group violent people, who wants to kill all Jews and Christian's and anyone who will not conform to Islam?

And what evidence is there she supports any group advocating violence?

However improper her method, she is correct to denounce a message portraying all Muslims as violent and hateful, as that’s clearly not the case.

The sign says Stop jihad, not stop Muslims.

Which is exactly why in my opinion, there's nothing that should stop them from being able to place them as they'd like. Rights are rights even if you don't like them, I'd like to think we'd all realize that.

Anyone making that much of a stink about it is probably just a little sour.

 

[Polk]

It is against the law to deface a sign.
She can just as easily get her own sign to put up.
Why would she be supporting a group violent people, who wants to kill all Jews and Christian's and anyone who will not conform to Islam?

And what evidence is there she supports any group advocating violence?

However improper her method, she is correct to denounce a message portraying all Muslims as violent and hateful, as that’s clearly not the case.

The sign says Stop jihad, not stop Muslims.

That's what it "says", but context is king.

 

[Polk]

What does that have to do with anything?

The camerawoman is a citizen who attempted to stop a crime in progress. You don't have to be a police officer to do that. And who did I say was assaulted?

If she could stop it without the use of force, that's true. However, to conduct a citizen's arrest, the other party would have needed to be committing a felony.

Other posters in this thread have claimed the camerawoman was assaulted.

In some jurisdictions the action of spraying her with paint would be assault. I am not sure exactly what the law says about this in New York though, so it might not be assault.

You're right, and I'm not sure on the New York provision either. Honestly, neither of them committed assault, because the injury requirement wasn't met. I was mostly arguing for the sake of arguing. The whole thing is just absurd though. Is there any indication of how was holding the camera?

 

[Amelia]

And what evidence is there she supports any group advocating violence?

However improper her method, she is correct to denounce a message portraying all Muslims as violent and hateful, as that’s clearly not the case.

The sign says Stop jihad, not stop Muslims.

That's what it "says", but context is king.

Her little feelings were hurt to the point that she felt driven to break the law, so she was arrested. And then she badmouthed the country for not letting her break the law without consequence.

Do you defend everyone whose feelings are hurt so badly that they go out and break the law? Where do you draw the line on what type of law you will defend them for breaking?

 

[Polk]

The sign says Stop jihad, not stop Muslims.

That's what it "says", but context is king.

Her little feelings were hurt to the point that she felt driven to break the law, so she was arrested. And then she badmouthed the country for not letting her break the law without consequence.

Do you defend everyone whose feelings are hurt so badly that they go out and break the law? Where do you draw the line on what type of law you will defend them for breaking?

First, notice that no one in this thread has defended her actions. Second, she didn't "badmouth the country", she was critical of what she (incorrectly) felt was a violation of her rights.

 

[Amelia]

That's what it "says", but context is king.

Her little feelings were hurt to the point that she felt driven to break the law, so she was arrested. And then she badmouthed the country for not letting her break the law without consequence.

Do you defend everyone whose feelings are hurt so badly that they go out and break the law? Where do you draw the line on what type of law you will defend them for breaking?

First, notice that no one in this thread has defended her actions. Second, she didn't "badmouth the country", she was critical of what she (incorrectly) felt was a violation of her rights.

She badmouthed America: "This is what happens in America when you nonviolently protest." She was complaining about how in America she is not allowed to deface the property of others.

Her actions have been mildly criticized while she herself has been defended. Such good motives which lead her to commit crimes for which she is unwilling to accept consequences.

If you aren't willing to do the time, don't do the crime, and don't expect people to admire you for badmouthing America for not letting you break the law.

If people come and graffiti her house will she file a complaint?

 

[Polk]

No, she was complaining what she felt was abuse of police power. She was wrong, but that doesn't make her words an attack on the nation. She's been "defended" against irrational criticisms.