View Full Version : Cindy Sheehan arrested
Manchot
Sep26-05, 01:02 PM
The news networks are reporting that Cindy Sheehan has just been arrested while protesting outside of the White House. I haven't found any sites reporting it yet, but I'm sure that there will be soon.
2CentsWorth
Sep26-05, 01:29 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9493139/
Iraq war protester Sheehan arrested
Protest near White House aimed at refocusing attention on conflict
Associated Press
Sept. 26, 2005
WASHINGTON - Cindy Sheehan, the California woman who has used her son’s death in Iraq to spur the anti-war movement, was arrested Monday while protesting outside the White House.
Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.
Sheehan, 48, was the first taken into custody. She stood up and was led to a police vehicle while protesters chanted, “The whole world is watching.”
Informal Logic
Sep26-05, 03:35 PM
From the link to the Associated Press report:
Others who were arrested also cooperated with police. Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor.If a citizen has to obtain a permit to demonstrate, what does this say about freedom of speech? What if the permit is denied?
...On Sunday, a rally supporting the war drew roughly 500 participants. Speakers included veterans of World War II and the war in Iraq, as well as family members of soldiers killed in Iraq.
“I would like to say to Cindy Sheehan and her supporters, ‘Don’t be a group of unthinking lemmings.’ It’s not pretty,” said Mitzy Kenny of Ridgeley, W.Va., whose husband died in Iraq last year. The anti-war demonstrations “can affect the war in a really negative way. It gives the enemy hope.”I would like to say to Mitzy, the unthinking lemming that she is, that ending the war would give Americans hope and take away a reason for the enemy to exist.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 04:00 PM
...and would allow a brutal dictator to massacre Iraqi civilians by the 100,000s. But of course, as long as America is happy right IL?
I find it odd that all of a sudden, just because this zombie got arrested for not doing the simple task of getting a permit, you are saying that getting a permit is unconstitutional...
Moonbear
Sep26-05, 04:03 PM
If a citizen has to obtain a permit to demonstrate, what does this say about freedom of speech? What if the permit is denied?
That's the part that really disturbed me. As best I can tell from the news stories, it was a peaceful protest, so no reason to arrest anyone. To require a permit to protest on public property, in front of the White House no less, sounds like a clear first amendment violation to me!
I find it odd that all of a sudden, just because this zombie got arrested for not doing the simple task of getting a permit, you are saying that getting a permit is unconstitutional...
I don't know about the US but this would have been unconstitutional in Canada.
Not that it actually matters what the legalities are, arresting her was wrong plain and simple, she was protesting peacefully.
Moonbear
Sep26-05, 04:06 PM
I find it odd that all of a sudden, just because this zombie got arrested for not doing the simple task of getting a permit, you are saying that getting a permit is unconstitutional...
She had a permit, it's called the first amendment! As long as they were protesting in a peaceable manner and not putting anyone in harm's way (no rioting going on), then she shouldn't require a permit on public property. If they were on private property, that would be a different story, but then the charge would be trespassing, not protesting without a permit.
This is exactly what I was talking about when I brought up the rave being raided by SWAT because they didn't have the right permit.
No where in the constitution does it say you need a permit to assemble for anything. What a prepostorous idea, and one that absolutely tramples over civil liberties.
Of course you have to have a permit. This is nothing new folks.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 04:29 PM
No where in the constitution does it say you need a permit to assemble for anything. What a prepostorous idea, and one that absolutely tramples over civil liberties.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have to have a permit for my firearm... but hey, i still get to have my gun.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 04:31 PM
She had a permit, it's called the first amendment! As long as they were protesting in a peaceable manner and not putting anyone in harm's way (no rioting going on), then she shouldn't require a permit on public property. If they were on private property, that would be a different story, but then the charge would be trespassing, not protesting without a permit.
You can't just start protesting wherever you want to. What If i started a protest out infront of your driveway where you live. Public property... but I'm sure you'd get a little pissed. Thus, permits.
You can't just start protesting wherever you want to. What If i started a protest out infront of your driveway where you live. Public property... but I'm sure you'd get a little pissed. Thus, permits.
BULL..
There is NO justification for requiring a permit, NO justification for impeding my 1st ammendment rights.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 04:45 PM
BULL..
There is NO justification for requiring a permit, NO justification for impeding my 1st ammendment rights.
So you wouldn't mind me and a few of my friends putting up a protest infront of your driveway? Maybe on a major highway that you need to use to get to work?
You can't just start protesting wherever you want to. What If i started a protest out infront of your driveway where you live. Public property... but I'm sure you'd get a little pissed. Thus, permits.
I'm no legal expert, buy my understanding is that in Canada as long as you're not on private property, you're protesting peacefully and your not obstructing someone's movement you have every right to protest there. You only need a permit for special instances.
So you wouldn't mind me and a few of my friends putting up a protest infront of your driveway? Maybe on a major highway that you need to use to get to work?
Yeah.. that's obstructing movement, if Cindy Sheehan was obstructing movement where she sat down and refused to move I would say that she was justifiably arrested... provided she was informed of this beforehand...
There's also a difference between protesting and just disturbing the peace.
Yeah.. that's obstructing movement, if Cindy Sheehan was obstructing movement where she sat down and refused to move I would say that she was justifiably arrested... provided she was informed of this beforehand...
she sat down on a sidewalk in DC so that probably qualifies. And she WAS warned.
Anyhow it sounds like she was trying to get arrested to draw attention.
What I'm miffed about is the charge that she was arrested because she was protesting without a warrant.
What trash!
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 04:52 PM
Yeah.. that's obstructing movement, if Cindy Sheehan was obstructing movement where she sat down and refused to move I would say that she was justifiably arrested... provided she was informed of this beforehand...
Sheehan and several dozen other protesters sat down on the sidewalk after marching along the pedestrian walkway on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police warned them three times that they were breaking the law by failing to move along, then began making arrests.
Yes, obstructing movement.
And protesting is disturbing hte peace if you haven't realized that. Thus you give out permits so that the "peace" can be given a little detour so no problems arise.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 04:53 PM
What trash!
So i guess when your against President Bush, laws mean nothing. Figures.
So i guess when your against President Bush, laws mean nothing. Figures.
Uh no? Where did I mention president bush? I was talking about the fact that a permit is required to protest...
When a law is unjust you should fight it, regardless of politics...
Yes, obstructing movement.
And protesting is disturbing hte peace if you haven't realized that. Thus you give out permits so that the "peace" can be given a little detour so no problems arise.
Yes pengwuino I read the article. However (and correct me if I'm wrong - I'm no sidewalk expert like you) sitting down on a sidewalk does not mean you are necessarily obstructing movement. Sitting down on a side walk is not an arrestable offence. That's stupid.
Also, I know she was warned, but was she informed. You have to actually inform her of the details, not just tell her she's breaking the law. When you arrest someone you read them all their rights, not just mention that they might have a few.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 04:58 PM
Uh no? Where did I mention president bush? I was talking about the fact that a permit is required to protest...
When a law is unjust you should fight it, regardless of politics...
It has been that way for yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears and everyone, every political activist organization, the KKK, abortion this abortion that groups, everyone has understood that they need to take a few hours out of their day to get a simple permit that is almost never denied. We all must make small insignificant sacrifices to make a society of almost 300,000,000 work correctly and this is one of them.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:04 PM
Yes pengwuino I read the article. However (and correct me if I'm wrong - I'm no sidewalk expert like you) sitting down on a sidewalk does not mean you are necessarily obstructing movement. Sitting down on a side walk is not an arrestable offence. That's stupid.
Well what I'm imagining here is that there all sitting on the sidewalk while people are trying to walk by the White House. How are you going to get by? Theres a gate on 1 side, the road with cars traveling on the other side. You don't want people to be walking into traffic just to get around them. If that gate isnt there, then it does make sense for people to just wlak around the non-road side. But as far as i can tell, it was infront of the whitehouse which means there was a gate on the other side of the sidewalk making it dangerous to walk around.
Hail to the sidewalk god!!!!!!!!!
Also, I know she was warned, but was she informed. You have to actually inform her of the details, not just tell her she's breaking the law. When you arrest someone you read them all their rights, not just mention that they might have a few.
I'm pretty sure journalists arent tasked with writing down the exact conversation that takes place when someone is arrested. Kinda hard... humans can only write so fast.
It has been that way for yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeears and everyone, every political activist organization, the KKK, abortion this abortion that groups, everyone has understood that they need to take a few hours out of their day to get a simple permit that is almost never denied. We all must make small insignificant sacrifices to make a society of almost 300,000,000 work correctly and this is one of them.
Pengwuino, the first ammendment GUARANTEES ME FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REQUEST FOR A PERMIT DENIED IMPEDES THIS FREEDOM.
Comprende!?!?!!??!?!??!?!?
Well what I'm imagining here is that there all sitting on the sidewalk while people are trying to walk by the White House. How are you going to get by? Theres a gate on 1 side, the road with cars traveling on the other side. You don't want people to be walking into traffic just to get around them. If that gate isnt there, then it does make sense for people to just wlak around the non-road side. But as far as i can tell, it was infront of the whitehouse which means there was a gate on the other side of the sidewalk making it dangerous to walk around.
How small are sidewalks in Washington DC, anyways? The main road in my area has a sidewalk big enough for two fully grown humans to lay down across.
I've been to the white house there is plenty of room to step around people (there was a protest going on while i was there - and no I wasn't part of it, I don't even know what it was for).
Pengwuino, the first ammendment GUARANTEES ME FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REQUEST FOR A PERMIT DENIED IMPEDES THIS FREEDOM.
Comprende!?!?!!??!?!??!?!?I don't disagree that at times demonstrations should be denied (otherwise people could just use it as an excuse to disturb the peace). What I dislike is that you have to take a couple hours out of your day to do it. You shouldn't need a permit, but cops should be able to (with a warrant) arrest you if they think the demonstration is just silly.
I've been to the white house there is plenty of room to step around people (there was a protest going on while i was there - and no I wasn't part of it, I don't even know what it was for).
Okay then, there we go then. It wasn't obstructing movement unless they were going out of their way to take up a lot of space. IN THAT CASE it would have been justified PROVIDED she was informed that she had to stop (not because she probably didn't know, but because it's her right).
Having said that, I think it's quite possible that it was a publicity stunt and she was justifiably arrested.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:16 PM
Pengwuino, the first ammendment GUARANTEES ME FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
THE FACT THAT THERE IS EVEN A POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A REQUEST FOR A PERMIT DENIED IMPEDES THIS FREEDOM.
Comprende!?!?!!??!?!??!?!?
Incorrect. The courts have already decided that you are wrong.
Incorrect. The courts have already decided that you are wrong.
Ok genious the courts have NO right to take away my rights as defined in the bill of rights.
They, as part of the federal government, share a responsibility in DEFENDING those rights.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:19 PM
You shouldn't need a permit, but cops should be able to (with a warrant) arrest you if they think the demonstration is just silly.
Sounds like a violation of freedom of speech. Don't you canadians have any rights? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And how in gods name would they need a warrent? Those need to be signed by judges. By the time you get one, the protest would probably be gone.
But at least we have firmly established here that she was breaking the law and that getting a permit does not infringe on your freedom of speech.
And what kinda sidewalk can handle 2 full grown people laying down????? Man the world must be supersized outside of my city.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:20 PM
Ok genious the courts have NO right to take away my rights as defined in the bill of rights.
I think you need to take a few minutes to study up on american legal history.
I am not talking about precedent. I am talking about having my civil liberties, as defined in the bill of rights, impeded upon.
By your reasoning the Patriot Act is perfectly justifiable in impeding on my civil liberties.
THAT reasoning by the way is treasonous.
Sounds like a violation of freedom of speech. Don't you canadians have any rights? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And how in gods name would they need a warrent? Those need to be signed by judges. By the time you get one, the protest would probably be gone.
But at least we have firmly established here that she was breaking the law and that getting a permit does not infringe on your freedom of speech.
And what kinda sidewalk can handle 2 full grown people laying down????? Man the world must be supersized outside of my city.
Two points:
1. We certainly have NOT established that it does not infringe on our freedom of speech.
2. In DC it is QUITE EASY TO WALK AROUND THE SIDEWALK BY USING THE GIGANTIC GRASS LAWN RIGHT NEXT TO IT!
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:25 PM
I am not talking about precedent. I am talking about having my civil liberties, as defined in the bill of rights, impeded upon.
By your reasoning the Patriot Act is perfectly justifiable in impeding on my civil liberties.
THAT reasoning by the way is treasonous.
The Patriot Act was legislation. Courts rule upon legislation once a case is brought up. Jesus, did you ever take any high school government classes? Do you even realize the countless other things that, at face value, are infringements, but everyone has realized is ok since the governing of 300,000,000 people is not easy when you take everything at absolute face value?
Sounds like a violation of freedom of speech. Don't you canadians have any rights? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Not to me.. why?
And how in gods name would they need a warrent? Those need to be signed by judges. By the time you get one, the protest would probably be gone.In canada police can get warrants over the phone. They're called telewarrants. This would be a perfect example of when they could be used.
But at least we have firmly established here that she was breaking the law and that getting a permit does not infringe on your freedom of speech.We havn't actually...
And what kinda sidewalk can handle 2 full grown people laying down????? Man the world must be supersized outside of my city.
It's only that big on one street... The others can be substantially smaller. Then again, I havn't seen the whole city yet, there might be bigger ones too.
The Patriot Act was legislation. Courts rule upon legislation once a case is brought up. Jesus, did you ever take any high school government classes? Do you even realize the countless other things that, at face value, are infringements, but everyone has realized is ok since the governing of 300,000,000 people is not easy when you take everything at absolute face value?
Yes I did take some high school government classes.
They taught me that the most important things that make america so special are the preamble to the declaration of independance, which guarantees me life, liberty, and happyness, and the bill of rights of the U.S. constitution, which protects my right to life, liberty, and happyness.
This means that any legislation, body, entity, or person that seeks to impede upon the bill of rights or the constitution is comitting treason and seeking to limit my ability to pursue those 3 key aspects mentioned in the preamble.
Perhaps you skipped class on that day, my feathered and ignorant amigo.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:31 PM
Two points:
1. We certainly have NOT established that it does not infringe on our freedom of speech.
2. In DC it is QUITE EASY TO WALK AROUND THE SIDEWALK BY USING THE GIGANTIC GRASS LAWN RIGHT NEXT TO IT!
You have brought nothing but emotional rhetoric to this argument. Thus, we have established both of my points to be correct while you have simply yelled out your unfounded opinions
If anyoen wants to take a look via google's satellite program... you can see the fence (aka big grassy area, ha)
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:34 PM
In canada police can get warrants over the phone. They're called telewarrants. This would be a perfect example of when they could be used.
Holy crap are you serious? Man.. if they tried that in the US, people would be going nuts.
We havn't actually...
Denial is a waste of time... you cannot deny it.... you are under my control.
It's only that big on one street... The others can be substantially smaller. Then again, I havn't seen the whole city yet, there might be bigger ones too.
I have hte hugest street in my city. You can practically drive 100mph while drunk and not hit anything on the side of the road. Pretty awesome.
!?!? We must be talking about two different parts of the white house because where I was, there was a big line to go take a closer look and tour of the white house (though not inside it), and this line was on the grass lawn, because on the sidewalk there was protest of some sort. It was very easy to walk around it however.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:34 PM
Perhaps you skipped class on that day, my feathered and ignorant amigo.
Oh so you just took a single day of it? No wonder you don't understand. It's ok... many people out there haven't graduated high school so you're not alone.
... so in other words you've completely retreated from your attack on my civil liberties and sunk to attacking my character?
If anyoen wants to take a look via google's satellite program... you can see the fence (aka big grassy area, ha)
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/whitehouse-0015.jpg
Now, forgive me if I'm just an ignorant canadian and this is some other white house.... But those sidewalks look damn big. Bigger than here in nanaimo, easily two people - hands outstretched. maybe even 4.
Huckleberry
Sep26-05, 05:38 PM
The Patriot Act was legislation. Courts rule upon legislation once a case is brought up. Jesus, did you ever take any high school government classes? Do you even realize the countless other things that, at face value, are infringements, but everyone has realized is ok since the governing of 300,000,000 people is not easy when you take everything at absolute face value?Sorry, I'm not willing to give up my rights to make governing this country any easier. They are my rights and I am going to keep them and excersice them whenever I please. It is the government's job to protect my rights and not infringe upon them for the sake of convenience. If the government can't do that then they are not serving the purpose they were created for and should be replaced.
This situation is very simple. Was she harrassing people or infringing on anyone elses rights? If not, then she shouldn't have been arrested. The charge that they have against her of protesting without a permit is unconstitutional because we are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Requiring a permit violates this amendment because a permit is neither free nor unrestricting. A permit abridges our first amendment.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:39 PM
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/whitehouse-0015.jpg
Now, forgive me if I'm just an ignorant canadian and this is some other white house.... But those sidewalks look damn big. More than enough for two full grown humans to lay down across... 3 even.
Yah... i measured it at 10yards... With a few dozen people... anyone have pictures of what this actually looked like? I Mean they could have all been sitting on the edge... or they coulda been jumbled up.
I just was thinken based off my own sidewalk which ... well it barely can handle 2 people standing up!
http://cryptome.sabotage.org/whitehouse-0015.jpg
Now, forgive me if I'm just an ignorant canadian and this is some other white house.... But those sidewalks look damn big. Bigger than here in nanaimo, easily two people - hands outstretched. maybe even 4.
Ah, looking at that picture I have indeed surmised that I was on the complete opposite side of the white house LOL. (Or they opened up the fence so people could stand in line to take a tour.. this was well before 9/11. They don't even allow tours of the white house anymore).
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:41 PM
... so in other words you've completely retreated from your attack on my civil liberties and sunk to attacking my character?
Perhaps you skipped class on that day, my feathered and ignorant amigo.
Yes, I alone have sunk to personal attacks. I don't know what I was thinking.
I addressed the issue and then insulted you, you just abandoned the issue and ran with the insult.
Besides, all I did was call you ignorant as to the purposes of the bill of rights (which you obviously are).
You made some idiotic statement about me not having a high school diploma...
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:42 PM
Ah, looking at that picture I have indeed surmised that I was on the complete opposite side of the white house LOL.
See thats what im talking about. Whenever it hink "protest infrotn of the white house".... in that exact spelling... I think of people posting lil flyers or banners on the gate at the north side. I think they do that because the oval office has a direct view of the gate on that side of the grounds.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:43 PM
I addressed the issue and then insulted you, you just abandoned the issue and ran with the insult.
No, you ignored the issue and started attacking. Bad form.
Ah, looking at that picture I have indeed surmised that I was on the complete opposite side of the white house LOL. (Or they opened up the fence so people could stand in line to take a tour.. this was well before 9/11. They don't even allow tours of the white house anymore).
Yeah, actually most of the pictures of the whitehouse I saw were of the other side, which has about 4x as much park to it, so there may very well be no fence (or rather only a fence further in).
pattylou
Sep26-05, 05:45 PM
It seems she wanted to be arrested for peacefully protesting - It seems she wanted to spark this kind of energy - the exact debate you guys are having.
I don't feel sorry for her, or upset with the government. She knew the rules, and played them so that she'd be arrested. The cops knew and played too.
I oppose the war, and I hope this action gets some people thinking about the war if they aren't .... but really my main response to the whole thing today is: :rolleyes:
Man, YOU Are ignoring the issue by continuing this idiocy,
THIS ARGUEMENT IS ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S CHARGE TO PROTECT MY CIVIL LIBERTIES.
It has not fulifilled its duty. Indeed it has passed legislation attempting to retract many of my rights (and yours too, if you would just open your eyes).
So... was I the only one that looked at the actual front of the white house? :rofl:
No, you ignored the issue and started attacking. Bad form.
Uh and I didn't ignore the issue, I stated a very clear arguement which you chose to completely ignore.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:48 PM
It has not fulifilled its duty. Indeed it has passed legislation attempting to retract many of my rights (and yours too, if you would just open your eyes).
I think im the only one here realizing there have been rights that have been infringed upon for the last 2 centuries. How can one be so ignorant as to think that people should be allowed to do absolutely anything and everything they want to do without an insignificant bit of restraint?
Hell what if I wanted to protest the government by not paying taxes? What if everyone did it? Government collapses, the country collapses.
Protest by parking my car in the middle of Interstate 5? Tremendous traffic jam, possible accidents, possible loss of life.
Yell fire in a crowded theatre? Well I think most of the people here know the answer here!
Are you people just so naive as to think that society can run in anarchy?
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:49 PM
So... was I the only one that looked at the actual front of the white house? :rofl:
Fool! Who uses the front of buildings??? :rofl: :rofl:
But no really, they use the back side because the oval office has a view of it as far as I can tell. Unless you want to protest the secretaries of the white house... the back is better.
Uh and I didn't ignore the issue, I stated a very clear arguement which you chose to completely ignore.
Incorrect. Your argument was emotionally charged rhetoric that has no basis in reality.
Fool! Who uses the front of buildings??? :rofl: :rofl:
But no really, they use the back side because the oval office has a view of it as far as I can tell. Unless you want to protest the secretaries of the white house... the back is better.
I don't know, I don't think there'd be much of a response from Bush. I thought the point was to gain other people's attention... so the front would be better.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 05:52 PM
I don't know, I don't think there'd be much of a response from Bush. I thought the point was to gain other people's attention... so the front would be better.
Well I guess the only reason protestors use that side is because it may get more traffic? I dunno...
pattylou
Sep26-05, 05:57 PM
Pretty sure she chose the side that would get her arrested (ie had a narrow sidewalk.)
Huckleberry
Sep26-05, 06:04 PM
Hell what if I wanted to protest the government by not paying taxes? What if everyone did it? Government collapses, the country collapses.
Protest by parking my car in the middle of Interstate 5? Tremendous traffic jam, possible accidents, possible loss of life.
Yell fire in a crowded theatre? Well I think most of the people here know the answer here!
Are you people just so naive as to think that society can run in anarchy?Most of these things violate other people's rights. As the government does not have the authority to violate your civil rights, you do not have the authority violate the rights of other civilians. I think that is just common sense.
Incorrect. Your argument was emotionally charged rhetoric that has no basis in reality.
This was my arguement:
Yes I did take some American Government classes
They taught me that the most important things that make america so special are the preamble to the declaration of independance, which guarantees me life, liberty, and happyness, and the bill of rights of the U.S. constitution, which protects my right to life, liberty, and happyness.
This means that any legislation, body, entity, or person that seeks to impede upon the bill of rights or the constitution is comitting treason and is seeking to limit my ability to pursue those 3 key aspects mentioned in the preamble.
------
Does that look like emotionally charged rhetoric to you?
If what I said there has no basis in reality, maybe you would be better off living in North Korea.
deckart
Sep26-05, 06:24 PM
This was my arguement:
Yes I did take some American Government classes
They taught me that the most important things that make america so special are the preamble to the declaration of independance, which guarantees me life, liberty, and happyness, and the bill of rights of the U.S. constitution, which protects my right to life, liberty, and happyness.
This means that any legislation, body, entity, or person that seeks to impede upon the bill of rights or the constitution is comitting treason and is seeking to limit my ability to pursue those 3 key aspects mentioned in the preamble.
------
Does that look like emotionally charged rhetoric to you?
If what I said there has no basis in reality, maybe you would be better off living in North Korea.
So, what are you doing about it?
hitssquad
Sep26-05, 06:26 PM
Max,
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence...
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
...not in the Preamble to the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html
I have to agree with Max.
...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...
she was peacfully assembling. just because she has some signs doesn't make it any different. she had every right to be there.
Max,
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence...
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
...not in the Preamble to the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html
he said the preamble to the declaration of independance
russ_watters
Sep26-05, 06:34 PM
MaxS, the bottom line here is that you are unwilling to accept the fact that all rights have limits, even the right to freedom of speech. Whether in this specific case, the protester stepped over the line isn't really important to whether or not such a line exists. And it does (and must) exist.
when did she 'step over the limits'? when does protesting by sitting on a sidewalk with signs harm anybody in any way? we were even taught in school: 'if I wanted to go outside the White House and peacefully protest, without hurting anybody, it would be perfectly legal'
pattylou
Sep26-05, 06:41 PM
The charge was obstructing the flow of (foot) traffic...
Or words to that effect.
IMU there was a group of people, not just one woman, and several were arrested, not just Cindy.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 06:43 PM
Most of these things violate other people's rights. As the government does not have the authority to violate your civil rights, you do not have the authority violate the rights of other civilians. I think that is just common sense.
And how isn't the permitting process common sense? What if (and this has happened before, many times) two groups want to protest at hte same place? What if people would like to actually drive their cars or walk along the sidewalk and all of a sudden your blocking their way? Invading their rights as well! Yes, this is common sense. Permitting is common sense.
Pengwuino
Sep26-05, 06:44 PM
when did she 'step over the limits'? when does protesting by sitting on a sidewalk with signs harm anybody in any way? we were even taught in school: 'if I wanted to go outside the White House and peacefully protest, without hurting anybody, it would be perfectly legal'
Yes its legal but you need a permit because you are obstructing traffic. Many protests normally have to have the streets blocked off so you get a permit which informs the city that you will need the streets blocked.... less you want to get run over or make people late for work.
Ok genious the courts have NO right to take away my rights as defined in the bill of rights.
They, as part of the federal government, share a responsibility in DEFENDING those rights.First, stop with the personal attack.
Max, since you seem not to understand laws in the US, perhaps you should read up before continuing in this thread.
Here's a test - can anyone tell me what loitering means? Seems no one has a grasp on that one either. :rolleyes:
umm...prtests have been going on here. I've never heard of an arrest here because of the lack of foot traffic. that doeasn't even count as 'disturbing the peace'
Max,
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence...
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
...not in the Preamble to the Constitution.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html
I said the preamble to the declaration..
Manchot
Sep26-05, 06:57 PM
Pengwuino, I suggest that you watch the video footage from MSNBC.com. The police had already moved the protest down the street and behind barricades. (Listen to the reporter speaking). Therefore, the portion of sidewalk that she was sitting down on was not intended for foot traffic, and they were disrupting no one's motion. Hence, they were breaking no laws. Plain and simple.
Pengwuino, I suggest that you watch the video footage from MSNBC.com. The police had already moved the protest down the street and behind barricades. (Listen to the reporter speaking). Therefore, the portion of sidewalk that she was sitting down on was not intended for foot traffic, and they were disrupting no one's motion. Hence, they were breaking no laws. Plain and simple.They did if they didn't have a permit.
Manchot
Sep26-05, 07:10 PM
Nope. As we've established, you don't have to have a permit as long as you're on public property and you're not obstructing anyone. For all those who are interested, here's the quote from the MSNBC reporter:
"...and they were moved a bit a farther down the street, and they were put behind barricades which had been on the street all weekend. It was at that point that Cindy Sheehan and others sat down on the sidewalk."
Astronuc
Sep26-05, 07:14 PM
Sheehan could be engaging in 'civil disobedience', and if so, she should expect to get arrested, and it seems that is the plan . . .
On Monday, Sheehan and several other parents of fallen soldiers were among some 300 activists arrested in a mass civil disobedience on the sidewalk outside the White House.
While right-wing critics like Rush Limbaugh like to suggest she's being bankrolled by Move On, Michael Moore, and other elements of the "limousine left," Sheehan's crusade is still very much a grassroots affair. When she and the rest of the Bring Them Home Now tour hit Washington this week to challenge Bush to meet with them and put the heat on Congress for funding the war, they crashed on couches and slept on bunkbeds at an international youth hostel. http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0539,ferguscd,68201,2.html
hitssquad
Sep26-05, 07:25 PM
Sheehan could be engaging in 'civil disobedience'Normally, civil disobediance involves going limp and passively being carried away. However, in this picture Sheehan can be seen groping the two police officers who are carrying her, and almost reaching one's Glock with her right hand.
cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2005/09/26/1236538-ap.html (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2005/09/26/1236538-ap.html)
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/gun_retention.html
"By going for my gun, the kid gloves have come off."
Nope. As we've established, you don't have to have a permit as long as you're on public property and you're not obstructing anyone. "Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/wardemonstrations.ap/index.html
As you can see from the picture, they're clearly obstructing pedestrian traffic. How can "hundreds of protestors" not be an obstruction?
As Astronuc pointed out, it's considered civil disobedience. They knew they would be arrested.
MaxS, the bottom line here is that you are unwilling to accept the fact that all rights have limits, even the right to freedom of speech. Whether in this specific case, the protester stepped over the line isn't really important to whether or not such a line exists. And it does (and must) exist.
This is absolutely wrong.
The role of the government is to protect my fundamental rights and liberties.
Any time the government impedes or restricts those rights it has failed its duty.
First, stop with the personal attack.
Max, since you seem not to understand laws in the US, perhaps you should read up before continuing in this thread.
Here's a test - can anyone tell me what loitering means? Seems no one has a grasp on that one either. :rolleyes:
I DO understand the laws of the United States.
Where do you go off thinking that I am ignorant as to the law?
I am pointing out that those laws are WRONG.
Moonbear
Sep26-05, 08:37 PM
I think im the only one here realizing there have been rights that have been infringed upon for the last 2 centuries. How can one be so ignorant as to think that people should be allowed to do absolutely anything and everything they want to do without an insignificant bit of restraint?
Hell what if I wanted to protest the government by not paying taxes? What if everyone did it? Government collapses, the country collapses.
Protest by parking my car in the middle of Interstate 5? Tremendous traffic jam, possible accidents, possible loss of life.
Yell fire in a crowded theatre? Well I think most of the people here know the answer here!
Are you people just so naive as to think that society can run in anarchy?
She was charged for not obtaining a permit, that is my objection. If she had been charged with obstructing traffic, creating a public safety risk, assaulting a police officer, disorderly conducting, inciting riot, etc., then I would not be here arguing over it. But just the fact that someone is sitting in an office deciding who can or cannot protest by requiring a permit, that is a violation of the first amendment and I have a BIG problem with that. Are these permits free? Does EVERYONE who applies for one get one? If so, why require them in the first place? If not, then that is limiting people's Consitutional rights. If there was nothing they could have charged her with if she did have a permit, then why would she need it other than to suppress her rights?
I am not taking this position because of who she was protesting, but because of the restriction placed on ALL OUR freedoms by requiring a permit to protest. You should be allowed to stage a counter protest if you want without a permit. If someone were out on that same sidewalk protesting liberal policies and were arrested under the same charges, I would still be upset over it.
It's entirely possible there were other reasons for the arrest, such as lining up the protesters in a way that did impede pedestrian traffic or required pedestrians to step into the street to get around them, but then why wasn't that the charge? I realize this woman is on a crusade against Bush, and may have purposely been antagonizing the cops to get herself arrested and make it a bigger news story, in which case the arrest may have been justified (in fact, when I first saw the headline, that's what I expected to read and wasn't feeling sympathetic toward her at all), but that still does not mean the charge of protesting without a permit is a justified or constitutional charge.
Actually, there could be multiple charges against her and the others. They picked the least of the charges, it's a ticket, which a judge will probably dismiss. I can't believe the fuss over this.
Also, demonstrating in front of a Federal building can bring federal charges. Not sure how the White House is classified. They knew they needed a permit and probably didn't get one intentionally. People are rarely denied a permit AFAIK.
Moonbear, they were asked three times to disperse and they refused. They were given fair warning. The authorities had no choice and this had to be done, otherwise a group like the KKK could do the same and expect not to be made to disperse.
Moonbear
Sep26-05, 08:52 PM
"Sgt. Scott Fear, spokesman for the U.S. Park Police, said they would be charged with demonstrating without a permit, which is a misdemeanor."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/wardemonstrations.ap/index.html
As you can see from the picture, they're clearly obstructing pedestrian traffic. How can "hundreds of protestors" not be an obstruction?
As Astronuc pointed out, it's considered civil disobedience. They knew they would be arrested.
I hadn't seen the photos earlier. Is protesting without a permit the ONLY charge? This is the part that still makes no sense. Were the police indicating they were sympathetic to the protest by choosing that charge? If the reason the permits are required are to provide notification to the police to help regulate traffic flow around the protest, then why not just require the protest be registered rather than issue a permit? A permit suggests you need permission, whereas registration would indicate you don't need permission, anyone could protest, but you just have to let someone know your intentions so they can accomodate the crowd and ensure the safety of the protesters.
I hadn't seen the photos earlier. Is protesting without a permit the ONLY charge? This is the part that still makes no sense. Were the police indicating they were sympathetic to the protest by choosing that charge? If the reason the permits are required are to provide notification to the police to help regulate traffic flow around the protest, then why not just require the protest be registered rather than issue a permit? A permit suggests you need permission, whereas registration would indicate you don't need permission, anyone could protest, but you just have to let someone know your intentions so they can accomodate the crowd and ensure the safety of the protesters.See my above edit.
Here's a test - can anyone tell me what loitering means? Seems no one has a grasp on that one either. :rolleyes:
I don't see what loitering has to do with demonstrating?
Moonbear
Sep26-05, 09:00 PM
Moonbear, they were asked three times to disperse and they refused. They were given fair warning. The authorities had no choice and this had to be done, otherwise a group like the KKK could do the same and expect not to be made to disburse.
I'm not disputing whether they made a public nuisance and there was likely an arrestable offense there. It doesn't matter if it's a war protest or the KKK, as long as the protest is peaceful. We don't get to pick and choose whose rights are protected and whose aren't just because we agree or disagree with their message. Sitting down with signs sounds peaceful to me. The risk is that all it will take if someone doesn't like the message of a protest is to send some cops out to tell them to disperse, whether the request is justified or not, and if they don't listen and continue protesting, they get arrested. It's a rather quick way to end a protest, even if the charges later get dropped (often that is the case, which means they then can't be challenged).
I don't see what loitering has to do with demonstrating?The point is you can be arrested/ticketed for loitering. People were saying it's not illegal to stand around in a public place. Yep, it's called loitering.
according to Merriam Webster
Loiter
Main Entry: loi·ter
Pronunciation: 'loi-t&r
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English
1 : to delay an activity with aimless idle stops and pauses : DAWDLE
2 a : to remain in an area for no obvious reason : HANG AROUND b : to lag behind
I'm not disputing whether they made a public nuisance and there was likely an arrestable offense there. It doesn't matter if it's a war protest or the KKK, as long as the protest is peaceful. We don't get to pick and choose whose rights are protected and whose aren't just because we agree or disagree with their message. Sitting down with signs sounds peaceful to me. The risk is that all it will take if someone doesn't like the message of a protest is to send some cops out to tell them to disperse, whether the request is justified or not, and if they don't listen and continue protesting, they get arrested. It's a rather quick way to end a protest, even if the charges later get dropped (often that is the case, which means they then can't be challenged).Well, that's my point, I would expect any group that acted in this manner to have been arrested. I'm not surprised that they were. I'm sure they wanted to be arrested to get more press.
Moonbear
Sep26-05, 09:10 PM
The point is you can be arrested/ticketed for loitering. People were saying it's not illegal to stand around in a public place. Yep, it's called loitering.
according to Merriam Webster
Loiter
Main Entry: loi·ter
Pronunciation: 'loi-t&r
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English
1 : to delay an activity with aimless idle stops and pauses : DAWDLE
2 a : to remain in an area for no obvious reason : HANG AROUND b : to lag behind
Yeah, that's another law I never understood. Of course it only gets enforced when someone doesn't like the look of the person standing around. It seems if you stand outside in a business suit, people assume you're waiting for your ride home or for an appointment with someone inside, but if you stand around wearing ripped jeans, have a few tattoos and your lip pierced, someone's going to call it loitering. Mostly it's used in areas with a lot of drug dealing or prostitution to keep the "bad elements" off the streets, but that means you're arresting people for looking suspicious or standing around the wrong place, not because they've actually done anything wrong.
Moonbear
Sep26-05, 09:14 PM
Well, that's my point, I would expect any group that acted in this manner to have been arrested. I'm not surprised that they were. I'm sure they wanted to be arrested to get more press.
If their intention was to practice civil disobedience, as Astronuc's posts have indicated, then they may have been doing it for more than just the press (though I'm sure that was a big part of it). They may be prepared to challenge the laws requiring permits or otherwise restricting their right to protest, but you have to suffer some damages as a result of the law (such as having your arrest plastered all over the news) before you can challenge it.
I doubt that their intention is to protest permits. The last thing the Bush admin wants right now is more bad press on this and Sheehan's group knows that and they also knew that their behavior would give the authorities no choice. It's so transparent. It's all part of the game.
Yeah, that's another law I never understood. Of course it only gets enforced when someone doesn't like the look of the person standing around. It seems if you stand outside in a business suit, people assume you're waiting for your ride home or for an appointment with someone inside, but if you stand around wearing ripped jeans, have a few tattoos and your lip pierced, someone's going to call it loitering. Mostly it's used in areas with a lot of drug dealing or prostitution to keep the "bad elements" off the streets, but that means you're arresting people for looking suspicious or standing around the wrong place, not because they've actually done anything wrong.Unless it's a large gang of meninhats. :tongue2:
Laws are enacted because someone wanted them. Laws are repealed when enough people don't want them.
If a group of drug dealers & prostitutes started congregating outside of our homes, we would love this law (well, some of you might not mind :tongue: ). Ok, what if it was a group of bible thumping, born again, ID pushing, hell fire & brimstone evangelists? :surprised
SOS2008
Sep26-05, 09:50 PM
The freedom of assembly in order to protest sometimes conflicts with laws intended to protect public safety, even in democratic countries: in many cities, the police are authorized by law to disperse any crowd (including a crowd of political protesters) which threatens public safety, or which the police cannot control. The idea is to prevent rioting. Often local law requires that a permit must be obtained in advance by protest organizers if a protest march is anticipated; the permit application can be denied. Sometimes this bureaucratic power is abused by lawmakers if the protest is not a popular one in the community or with the local government, with the permit process in some cities taking a great deal of time, organization, and even money required before a permit is issued -- and then, when issued, time and location restrictions are sometimes added.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly
loseyourname
Sep26-05, 09:58 PM
^
Protests of the 2000 DNC in Los Angeles are a great example of the above. Groups were restricted to "free speech zones" several blocks from the actual convention where neither the delegates nor the press paid any attention to them. The worst part is that Staples Center is surrounded by leagues of huge parking lots, and the Los Angeles Convention Center, which each could have afforded large spaces set aside for the protesters to demonstrate. Instead, they sent them over to Pershing Park, which stands on the other side of several blocks worth of 50 story skyscrapers from Staples!
^
Protests of the 2000 DNC in Los Angeles are a great example of the above. Groups were restricted to "free speech zones" several blocks from the actual convention where neither the delegates nor the press paid any attention to them. The worst part is that Staples Center is surrounded by leagues of huge parking lots, and the Los Angeles Convention Center, which each could have afforded large spaces set aside for the protesters to demonstrate. Instead, they sent them over to Pershing Park, which stands on the other side of several blocks worth of 50 story skyscrapers from Staples!I have a problem with the designated "free speech zones" aka outer Siberia. :grumpy:
Moonbear
Sep26-05, 10:25 PM
Unless it's a large gang of meninhats. :tongue2:
Laws are enacted because someone wanted them. Laws are repealed when enough people don't want them.
If a group of drug dealers & prostitutes started congregating outside of our homes, we would love this law (well, some of you might not mind :tongue: ). Ok, what if it was a group of bible thumping, born again, ID pushing, hell fire & brimstone evangelists? :surprised
Hmm...given the choice between meninhats, drug dealers and prostitutes, or evangelists, I think I'll take the drug dealers and prostitutes. :biggrin:
But, seriously, if it's a public sidewalk, they have a right to be there even if I don't like it. I was never fond of the teenagers hanging out with their pants around their knees and their underwear sticking out in my last neighborhood, but they had every right to be there. If they come onto my property, then I can have them arrested and removed for trespassing. It's one of those laws that probably wouldn't hold up if it was challenged, but since the people charged with it tend to be indigent, they can't afford to challenge it, or don't have the education to realize they could or should challenge it.
TheStatutoryApe
Sep26-05, 10:54 PM
It's pretty obvious that the permit process can be abused by the government but there is good reason for the permit process to exist. By going through a permit process the city can determine if the nature of the protest will be a problem such as say a KKK rally going on in Compton. Yes maybe KKK members have the right to say what ever they want but if they stage a sit in on the sidewalk in Compton, peaceful or not, there are going to be problems and legally such problems would be the fault of the KKK members because it was their activity that caused a disturbance. So there is one.
Two... The city can coordinate itself so as to minimize potential problems in the way of traffic jams, foot traffic, safety of the protesters, safety of the public at large, ect ect... If they know when and where such a gathering will be taking place they can have more police officers present and make sure not to allow other similar activities that may cause conflict in the same location at the same time.
Regardless of anyone's rights I don't want to have to deal with the problems resultant from a KKK rally setting up next to a gay rights march, the problems that could arise from such a thing being an infringment upon the rights of the public at large and their pursuit life liberty and happiness.
On the matter of loitering, this as far as I can tell is mainly to protect business owners. If I own a shop and there is a large group of people gathered outside my store which is detering paying customers from entering my establishment I'd liek to have some manner of taking care of that.
My friends and I had a guy working at a seven eleven tell us that he was going to call the cops on us if we didn't leave his parking lot. We had bought refreshments in the store and were playing chess on the hood of my friend's car. Really nasty scary people we must be huh?
SOS2008
Sep26-05, 10:57 PM
Ok, what if it was a group of bible thumping, born again, ID pushing, hell fire & brimstone evangelists? :surprisedYou mean like this?
Anti-gay church protests at soldiers’ funerals
Associated Press
Aug. 28, 2005
SMYRNA, Tenn. - Members of a church say God is punishing American soldiers for defending a country that harbors gays, and they brought their anti-gay message to the funerals Saturday of two Tennessee soldiers killed in Iraq.
----------
The church members carried signs and shouted things such as “God hates fags” and “God hates you.”
----------
The church members held protesting permits, and counterprotesters in Smyrna turned their backs to Westboro Baptist members until time expired on the protest permits.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/
You mean like this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/See, anyone can get a permit. :grumpy:
Moonbear
Sep26-05, 11:32 PM
On the matter of loitering, this as far as I can tell is mainly to protect business owners. If I own a shop and there is a large group of people gathered outside my store which is detering paying customers from entering my establishment I'd liek to have some manner of taking care of that.
You mean like the animal rights protesters in front of the fur shop? In the town where I grew up, this was a regular occurrence. The funny thing was that the fur shop was small and tucked back so it was pretty hard to see from the highway...I never knew it was there until the protesters showed up. I think the protesters actually helped their business by getting people to notice the shop. :rofl:
My friends and I had a guy working at a seven eleven tell us that he was going to call the cops on us if we didn't leave his parking lot. We had bought refreshments in the store and were playing chess on the hood of my friend's car. Really nasty scary people we must be huh?
Yep, nothing but chess-playing rabble rousers! Of course, in that case, if he owned the parking lot, he could throw you off it for any reason he wanted. You might have thought differently about it if you were standing on the public sidewalk just chatting while deciding where to go next or waiting for another friend to pick you up and drive you home.
russ_watters
Sep27-05, 09:33 AM
Yeah, that's another law I never understood. Of course it only gets enforced when someone doesn't like the look of the person standing around. It seems if you stand outside in a business suit, people assume you're waiting for your ride home or for an appointment with someone inside, but if you stand around wearing ripped jeans, have a few tattoos and your lip pierced, someone's going to call it loitering. Mostly it's used in areas with a lot of drug dealing or prostitution to keep the "bad elements" off the streets, but that means you're arresting people for looking suspicious or standing around the wrong place, not because they've actually done anything wrong. As a matter of fact, one of the biggest groups targeted for that is affluent whites being in places where you wouldn't expect them to be. The assumption being that affluent whites don't hang around in run-down parts of the city at 2:00 in the morning unless they are looking to score some drugs.
revelator
Sep27-05, 10:11 AM
That's kinda funny. I figure it's the people who already have drugs and aren't looking to score, that would be the most worthwhile to arrest. There's no law being broken by the dude who doesn't yet have any drugs.
That's kinda funny. I figure it's the people who already have drugs and aren't looking to score, that would be the most worthwhile to arrest. There's no law being broken by the dude who doesn't yet have any drugs.The point in Russ' scenario would be to make them leave the area, thus (supposedly) thwart their efforts to buy drugs.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.