Originally Posted by JAD
James Madison v George William Frederick
My post was in response to (armed) "protesting at private homes" in general and not specifically these particular actors in this particular case. If armed protest is to be allowed, it should be allowed whether you are at the governor's mansion, the courthouse steps, the corporate headquarters, the CEO's compound, or outside the house of the individual drawing the attention of protestors.
Last edited by 0ddl0t; 08-09-2020 at 04:44 PM.
One would think that obvious to the rational mind.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Just to be specific protesting at private homes is a provocative and inherently threatening act. Armed protests at private homes even more so.
James Madison v George William Frederick
My post was in response to (armed) "protesting at private homes" in general and not specifically these particular actors in this particular case. If armed protest is to be allowed, it should be allowed whether you are at the governor's mansion, the courthouse steps, the corporate headquarters, the CEO's compound, or outside the house of the individual drawing the attention of protestors.
Just because you have a General right to be somewhere like a public street in a residential neighborhood doesn’t mean you can do anything you want there. Context matters, behavior which is acceptable in one setting can be disorderly conduct in another.
Not to mention that freedom to do something is not freedom from consequences. In the case of the protest at the officers house, it was reported that the officer was not home but the protestors got into a confrontation with a neighbor trying to pull into their own driveway which ended in the neighbor pulling a long gun from his vehicle once he got into his driveway. Another example is the Fort Collins CO residents who beat the crap out of some Denver Antifa who wandered into a residential neighborhood.
Someone more tactically proficient than ST Louis pink polo guy could barricade in their house with a rifle and make threatening their residence very costly.
Protests are supposed to make those in power uncomfortable - they ought to feel threatened. That doesn't mean protests rise to the same threat level as someone aiming a gun at you - not even protests in which people are holding guns (pointed in a safe direction). Add an actual crime, like trespassing, vandalism, tangible/articulated threats, etc and it is no longer a lawful protest and arrests probably should be made.
Rights need not be exercised one at a time, nor must they acquiesce to illiberal notions of "safe spaces." Lawfully protesting at an officer's house is offensive & abhorrent, but I support their right to do so.
Frisby v. Schultz addressed this exact situation (minus the rifles), upholding a specific city bylaw against protesting specific houses in residential areas. I can't imagine most cities have such a rule, though, and frankly this case would likely be a closer call today.
If nothing else, those look like 30 round mags, which are illegal in CO. Most LE agencies have openly stated (IIRC) that they won't charge people for breaking that law but that it could be used as an additional charge. One more thing that could have been stuck to them. The Springs is still fairly conservative, I'm curious what has happened since and what the LE agencies here are planning to do about it, if anything.
So explain that to me. I should be able to make anyone who disagrees with me feel threatened? Where's the line drawn in your mind?
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Not in his mind, but in a tight circle around his feet.
Ignore Alien Orders
So you're saying that it's proper that this officer be threatened for doing his job within the law?
Lawful protest is expressing opposition or support of a law or situation in a peaceful manner. Once you get into physically threatening as you imply is proper, it's no longer a protest but a mob action.
Reply With Quote