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

[Crepitus]

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

BZZZZZZT!

It is true.

 

[Crepitus]

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

The above makes me sad.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

So the Capitol police should have been mowing them down?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

" 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.

Just because conservatives oppose the content and message of the protest doesn’t render that protest ‘unlawful.’

We see examples of this rightwing authoritarianism in Republican-controlled states with laws and measures hostile to the right to assemble and protest.

 

[Crepitus]

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

Nobody had a problem with the protest. They problem came when they staged an insurgency.

 

[blackhawk]

Peacefully protesting and rioting are not the same thing we seem to have adopted this strange mindset that they are. I will never support hindering anyones right to peacefully protest but when you start attacking people, smashing windows, destroying property, looting and setting fires you have gone from peaceful protester to rioter.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Read the article.

 

[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.

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

No you can't. We had protests during the shut down.

 

[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.

No. The Constitution specifically states to peacefully assemble.

Read the article.

 

[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.

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.

Read the article. This judge was addressing the police run amok during peaceful protests.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy was a lawless act of treason not entitled to First Amendment protections – an act of violence repugnant to Dr. King’s philosophy of peaceful resistance and protest.

 

[Meathead]

Read the article. This judge was addressing the police run amok during peaceful protests.

Were they "mostly peaceful protests"?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Rather than the endless communist protests the police should go totally Kent State.

 

[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.

Read the article. This judge was addressing the police run amok during peaceful protests.

That's as lie. It was a riot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

And not because conservatives are hostile to Americans of color engaging in protest, not because conservatives are hostile to the message of Americans of color needlessly dying while in police custody, and not because conservatives perceive lawful, peaceful protest as undermining the conservative partisan agenda.

 

[pknopp]

Read the article. This judge was addressing the police run amok during peaceful protests.

Were they "mostly peaceful protests"?

The article notes they were peaceful protests. The judge notes they were peaceful protests.

 

[Meathead]

Read the article. This judge was addressing the police run amok during peaceful protests.

Were they "mostly peaceful protests"?

The article notes they were peaceful protests. The judge notes they were peaceful protests.

Was the judge there or did he see it on CNN?

 

[Dana7360]

" 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.

Read the article.

What you posted didn't happen.

It wasn't an unlawful assembly. According to the judge, it was a peaceful protest. According to the judge and the video, the police didn't allow people to disburse. They started shooting and pepper spraying at the same time they told the protesters to disburse.

These police attacked peaceful protesters, media and EMT.

One woman who was only there to find her child, not to protest, was pepper sprayed 3 times by the police. The last time the cop stomped on her knee cap and told her that's what she deserved. For looking for her child. Not protesting.

Another man was shot in the knee resulting in him not being able to walk for 5 months and not able to walk for half a mile without debilitating pain.

For heaven's sake. Stop jumping to ridiculous excuses and read the article.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

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

were any cops hurt?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This judge was addressing the police run amok during peaceful protests.

The debate must encompass more than just the issue of police misconduct; it must address Republican elected officials using law enforcement in violation of the First Amendment in an effort to silence protest by the political opposition.