Ohio judge. Columbus police ran amok. They must amend their actions towards protesters.

[pknopp]

Algenon Marbley, chief judge for the Southern District of Ohio, began his 88 page opinion with a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: "But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for rights."


"Unfortunately, some of the members of the Columbus Police Department had no regard for the rights secured by this bedrock principle of American democracy," Marbley wrote. "This case is the sad tale of police officers, clothed with the awesome power of the state, run amok."

I also must note this as it's something I've long argued.

And officers must recognize that people displaying “press,” “media,” “reporter,” “paramedic,” “medic,” “legal observer,” or similar words or symbols are allowed to record at protests and help protesters who appear to be injured, the judge ruled. Further, anyone can record at a protest.

The courts have ruled over and over and over that anyone in public has a right to record the actions of the police. One day they will learn this. Until then taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of dollars for the violation of people's civil rights by the police.

And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting.

Federal judge says Columbus police ran 'amok' during peaceful protests

 

[Juicin]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

 

[pknopp]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

 

[Anathema]

Not all of us believe in an unregulated First Amendment. Some of us believe it needs to be highly regulated and restrict.

 

[Floyd61]

Unfortunately, these protesters like to assemble in Targets, liquor and shoe stores

 

[Anathema]

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

PEACEABLY!!!! The moment they’re not 100% peaceable they need to be slaughtered like sheep.

 

[Juicin]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

We do not have an absolute right to assembly, have never had it

We just shut down over the rona and you think they can't shut down a protest? lol

 

[whitehall]

Why can't that MLK quote be applied to the protestors at the nation's capital last January? Wrong protest?

 

[Godboy]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

Your democrat riots dont qualify as "peaceful assemblies".

 

[EvilCat Breath]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

No. The Constitution specifically states to peacefully assemble.

 

[Moonglow]

Not all of us believe in an unregulated First Amendment. Some of us believe it needs to be highly regulated and restrict.

So we can shut down churches, Mosques and Temples?

 

[Moonglow]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

No. The Constitution specifically states to peacefully assemble.

So, the capitol protest was unlawful. You being a so called legal beagle would have known this..

 

[Anathema]

So we can shut down churches, Mosques and Temples?

That works for me. I am totally against ALL forms of organized religion and public displays of such.

 

[Muhammed]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

We have a constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Once they start flinging poo like the chimps that they are, it is no longer a peaceful assembly, it's an unlawful assembly.

Blocking the roads is unlawful.

Lockdown orders are a violation of the constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Breaking up a riot is not a violation.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

No. The Constitution specifically states to peacefully assemble.

So, the capitol protest was unlawful. You being a so called legal beagle would have known this..

The capitol protest was peaceful as long as the protest was being done by Americans. Sadly communists infiltrated and a few vandalized. Not as bad as a burn loot murder riot.

 

[Mac-7]

Algenon Marbley, chief judge for the Southern District of Ohio, began his 88 page opinion with a quote from Martin Luther King, Jr.: "But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for rights."


"Unfortunately, some of the members of the Columbus Police Department had no regard for the rights secured by this bedrock principle of American democracy," Marbley wrote. "This case is the sad tale of police officers, clothed with the awesome power of the state, run amok."

I also must note this as it's something I've long argued.

And officers must recognize that people displaying “press,” “media,” “reporter,” “paramedic,” “medic,” “legal observer,” or similar words or symbols are allowed to record at protests and help protesters who appear to be injured, the judge ruled. Further, anyone can record at a protest.

The courts have ruled over and over and over that anyone in public has a right to record the actions of the police. One day they will learn this. Until then taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of dollars for the violation of people's civil rights by the police.

And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting.

Federal judge says Columbus police ran 'amok' during peaceful protests

A black clinton judge

 

[22lcidw]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

No. The Constitution specifically states to peacefully assemble.

So, the capitol protest was unlawful. You being a so called legal beagle would have known this..

What if that is...."In the course of human events.............."

 

[Mac-7]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

We have a constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Once they start flinging poo like the chimps that they are, it is no longer a peaceful assembly, it's an unlawful assembly.

Blocking the roads is unlawful.

Lockdown orders are a violation of the constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Breaking up a riot is not a violation.

You nailed it

too bad the idiot judge cant think as well as you do

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not all of us believe in an unregulated First Amendment. Some of us believe it needs to be highly regulated and restrict.

No one believes that the First Amendment is ‘absolute’; government indeed has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the right to protest consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.

The issue is that government has far too often used ‘keeping the peace’ as bad-faith ‘justification’ to silence lawful protest that government opposes; government regulation of speech must be content-neutral. Government seeking to silence protest because of the content of that protest violates the Frist Amendment.

 

[Moonglow]

" And lastly, police can not force people to "disperse" simply because someone does not want the protesters protesting. "

Is this judge retarded or what? Because that's obviously not true

We call them unlawful assemblies, and if those people who don't want you protesting are the cops yes they can.

You can call them whatever you want but people have a protected Constitutionally acknowledged right to assemble.

No. The Constitution specifically states to peacefully assemble.

So, the capitol protest was unlawful. You being a so called legal beagle would have known this..

What if that is...."In the course of human events.............."

You forgot to give a footnote to nothing...