http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/P...C-10901829.php
https://youtu.be/GSMKGRyWKas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=83&v=w-V4iJhnHhA
Printable View
"Tolerance"
As I said to a few friends last night:
Only in progressive America can college students protest a gay immigrant while simultaneously protesting a straight president over enforcing existing immigration law.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
I am a Milo fan, dude has a way with words.
The Constitution: You're either for it or against it. I've run out of time, patience and sympathy for those who advocate only for the rights of those who march in lockstep with themselves.
Such an attitude, in my humble opinion, undermines everything we have accomplished as a nation through times of war and peace...and if allowed to prevail will be our undoing.
Attachment 13611
I believe in the Constitution. I have sworn to uphold, preserve and protect it. That promise has no expiration date.
Sooner or later I'm afraid they're gonna corner the wrong cat.
Hell bent on being intentionally anachronistic
It should be noted, San Fran papers and IHE are saying the group that got violent and rioty was actually an Oakland group (for reference Oakland is a nearby fun filled location known having monthly riots and one of the hotbeds for the old Black Panther Party).
Police seem to have acted well. While dodging firework rockets and the occasional molotov cocktail they got the speaker out without harm.
In the end, (except for law enforcement being able to track individuals responsible), I think it's less important to brand the individual groups and sub-groups than it is to oppose all those who oppose freedom under the guise of their (progressive?) agenda. I don't really care what they call themselves. If they ain't for us, they're agin us.
Who's us and them? There's no monoblocs here. I find the speaker an outrageous attention getter (this feeds right into his agenda) and a loathsome troll but he has the right to free speech, just as protesters have the same rights to peacefully assemble and peacefully protest outside. In the US only cat people should have no rights, because cats are evil and first against the wall when the canine revolution comes. :rolleyes:
I think that's a dogwhistle for the racism that is inherent in secular liberalism. All those oppressed brown people, poor savages who are closer to their animal instincts, who can blame them for expressing themselves in the language of violence that they've been taught by The Man?
I use the term "us" as we who believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. (In other words, most of my brethren here who might read my post.)
I don't disagree with a single thing you say...well, except for the cat thing. Even as a dog guy for the most part, I've known a few cats I've enjoyed spending time around.
Our resolve is tested when we stand up for the rights of those we loathe. But we can't say we support the Constitution if we only support the parts we like.
P.S. Be careful, the cat people have their agents everywhere. Word to the wise.
Chancellor's statement before the event:
http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/26/...-yiannopoulos/
And after:
http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/02/...awful-protest/
Typical leftist behavior is: voter fraud in elections, protest and riot when they lose the election.
When they cannot convince you, they throw a tantrum and try to win by violence and intimidation.
When they criminally attack someone and they get hurt or killed THEN they talk about their victim's violence being evil.
Then they riot about the victim defending against criminal attack.
Its more that is a group known for rioting. Just like if BLM had a march and some white supremacists started attacking. You can't blame all the protesters for the acts of a specific few-especially when that specific few if throwing molotov cocktails (you get the heck out of the way).
I think your point about Milo being a "gay immigrant" is reinforcing the subconscious victim card that he has been strongly playing as he realizes that his 15 minutes of fame is nearly up..
He also realizes that staying in the headlines is critical to his livelihood (future book deals etc), and is resorting to increasingly divisive tactics to accomplish this goal.
(note, I generally find myself agreeing with what he says, so I consider myself unbiased in that regard)
it has been somewhat addressed in replies in this thread, but it is the suspicion of many that the main actors committing the true chaos/violence/crime/agitation during this set of events are extremists from established ANTIFA/Anarchist groups not only in berkeley but also oakland.
I have seen the results of such a specific group going unchecked first hand (have lived in and still love the berkeley area, even with it's many faults).
You are one obtuse FNG. For real or for theater; either way I could GAF.
i·ro·ny1
ˈīrənē/
noun
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"“Don't go overboard with the gratitude,” he rejoined with heavy irony"
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Purely philosophically, I have a question for you.
You are retired LEO and seem quite level-headed/knowledgeable about the law.
Would you suggest a public figure alter or perhaps tone down their plans, if it created predictable public security risks, for both themselves, potential crowds and bystanders as well as LEO under your command?
I asked blues due to his LEO experience likely offering an informed perspective that would help me understand the broader issue of balance between free speech and public safety.
I don't really care to distinguish between agitator groups such as extreme racists, fascists, anti-fascists, extreme leftists/rightists etc for this question as constitutionally i believe all are allowed free speech.
I don't know what "tone down their plans" means. One can alter plans and tone down rhetoric but I'm not going to presume to know what you're trying to describe.
Also, I was not a manager though I have acted in supervisory capacity on a temporary basis or as a team leader.
All that said, I think anyone in law enforcement who was charged with protecting a member of government or the public at large would want to analyze all the variables and make them known to those with a need to know.
Protecting both the official and the public is of paramount importance. So is protecting the truth and the right to express it privately or publicly.
very interesting - thanks.
- Is Milo speaking the truth 100%? Is this more fact or personal opinion?
- Is LE/Public Safety duty limited to informing about risks, or actively stepping in/taking action when deemed necessary?
- If you were in a command/influence position, would you allow for 100% free speech by all public knowing that it would place life/property/leo at risk?
I'm no lawyer, but a quick search shows Brandenburg vs. Ohio, 1969:
The court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
I'm no lawyer either... :)
so given that standard, I wonder -
- "punish" is specifically defined as?
- would Milo's presence/actions at the berkeley event produce imminent lawless action (in this case, moreso a predictable lawless and violent reaction from anarchists/antifa)
You do know Milo has the Dangerous Faggot Tour? http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/0...campuses-fall/
Calling Milo a gay immigrant is about as subconscious as informing water it's wet.
1. I haven't a clue what Milo said. I've never listened to his speeches or read anything he's written. He's only a name I have heard of.
2. I think the answer would be obvious to your second question in the absence of having been ordered to stand down. But I can only speak to what comes to my mind at the present time and from my personal experience.
3. Very broad question. I will say that my personal belief is that everyone has the right to free speech publicly or privately. (Absent "Fire!" in the theater and other such exclusions.) However, I am sure that each situation may call for its own "abundance of caution" where life and limb may be imperiled. You don't want to take risk of life lightly...at the same time, muzzling free and lawful speech is not without its own consequences, legal or otherwise. I decline to answer with a broad brush. I would choose to prepare as best as I could and make further decisions on the ground in the face of events. LEOs know that they will face risk. They signed up for that possibility. A good commander does not put those in their charge in danger lightly.
Hypothetical situations rarely encompass all the facts. Just as no good plan goes unaltered.
Milo isn't responsible because a group of children believe that, since they're fighting #literallyfascists, it's acceptable to use violence to #resist. A speaker does not bear responsibility for the reactions of a crowd simply because they make a choice to react inappropriately. There must be speech calculated to achieve that inappropriate result. An example, arguably, would be the statement of Michael Brown's father after the grand jury no-bill'd Darren Wilson ("burn this bitch down"). The protest later escalated into a mob whose members then burnt that bitch down.
interesting.
I think the violent, destructive and chaotic response to Milo's actions/words/presence is beyond predictable at this point and puts life/limb/property at risk (of those who may be misguided to participate in it, of those who are forced by mandate/duty (leo) and of those who may truly be innocent bystanders/passers through).
but that does not necessarily meet your interpretation of calculated speech.
One man's "truth" may be perceived as "incendiary" to the next. It doesn't have to be calculated to be so.
If I were foolish enough to walk into certain taverns in my area and "correct" someone on their perception of the War of Northern Aggression, what might be considered as truthful and factual to me might be considered inflammatory and "fighting words" to others, leading to me getting an ass whupping.
Sentiments aside, I don't think the law would say "that Yankee had it coming" even if those charged with its enforcement and prosecution felt it in their heart of hearts. Would a person having such a conversation in a tavern be considered to be a provocateur if a beat down was the end result? I would think not. The battery is not justified (legally).
(Disclaimer: I am an ardent fan of the late, ("unapologetic Mississippian"), Shelby Foote and use his three volumes on the subject of the Civil War as my guide...so no need to tar and feather me. ;))
it is strange that you are answering an honest question with a question when it seems like you do have an answer in your mind already.
vastly different context between standards and ideals one may choose to uphold in rather personal, one-on-one interactions and broader situations that would pull in others, exposing them to risk/consequence etc by no choosing of their own.
fishing I know you've gotten this advice before and promptly ignored it, but bro, post less for a while.
That's not my interpretation. It's the Supreme Court's interpretation -- as set forth in Brandenburg. Perhaps you ought to read it -- it's relatively short for a court case.
Under Brandenburg, a speaker can be Ted Nugent's "black jew at a nazi klan rally" -- conditions arguably ripe for violent action -- and still not speak "direct[ing] to inciting . . . imminent lawless action." Similarly, a klansman could speak outside the local NAACP headquarters and argue for the "moral necessity" of the genocide of black citizens and still not meet that test.
What you seem to be confusing with incitement is the hostile audience reaction doctrine (speaker says things the crowd doesn't like; mayhem ensues; cease and desist order then issued). While that doctrine has never been overruled, the Court has consistently held that the role of the State is to protect speech (something that, according to them, necessarily brings a clash of ideas) rather than suppress it, and has required extraordinary circumstances in order to apply the doctrine.