Rustina 510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 They shouldn't have been ordered to leave. They have every right to be their. END OF DISCUSION!!! Lol ok. And yes I am liberal, I do value freedom, and I don't need a over controlling government to place stupid laws banning unharmful acts of protest that support civil liberties. Quote Link to comment
Rustina 510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Lol and if you want to get all huffy puffy, then next time your not doing anything harmful with some friends in a public place and some cop comes along and tells you to leave or stop, then go ahead and be a good little sheep and run along. Quote Link to comment
thisismatt Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Anyone who doesn't understand the basics of "lawfull assembly",is THE moron.THey were asked to disperse.END OF FUCKING DISCUSSION-you leave. And i'm not a Republican,only a liberal would think so. Were they inciting a riot? Endangering the public in any way? Reasonably expected to do either? Quote Link to comment
Rustina 510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Ok explain how lawful assembly wasn't performed, I don't see any law they broke during their assembly except the not listening to the 5.0 telling them to leave "or else!!!" for no legal reason what so ever. Quote Link to comment
Rustina 510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 This is lawful assembly. A meeting of three or more individuals to commit a crime or carry out a lawful or unlawful purpose in a manner likely to imperil the peace and tranquillity of the neighborhood. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right of freedom of assembly. Under the Common Law and modern statutes, however, the meeting of three or more persons may constitute an unlawful assembly if the persons have an illegal purpose or if their meeting will breach the public peace of the community. If they actually execute their purpose, they have committed the criminal offense of riot. Under the common law, when three or more individuals assembled for an illegal purpose, the offense of unlawful assembly was complete without the commission of any additional Overt Act. Some modern state statutes require both assembly and the commission of one of the acts proscribed by the statutes, even if the purpose of the assembly is not completed. Generally, an unlawful assembly is a misdemeanor under both common law and statutes. The basis of the offense of unlawful assembly is the intent with which the individuals assemble. The members of the assembled group must have in mind a fixed purpose to perform an illegal act. The time when the intent is formed is immaterial, and it does not matter whether the purpose of the group is lawful or unlawful if they intend to carry out that purpose in a way that is likely to precipitate a breach of the peace. An assembly of individuals to carry on their ordinary business is not unlawful. Conversely, when three or more persons assemble and act jointly in committing a criminal offense, such as Assault and Battery, the assembly is unlawful. All those who participate in unlawful assemblies incur criminal responsibility for the acts of their associates performed in furtherance of their common objective. The mere presence of an individual in an unlawful assembly is enough to charge that person with participation in the illegal gathering. Political gatherings and demonstrations raise the most troublesome issues involving unlawful assembly. The line between protecting freedom of assembly and protecting the peace and tranquillity of the community is often difficult for courts to draw. In the 1960s, in a series of decisions involving organized public protests against racial Segregation in southern and border states, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out breach-of-the-peace convictions involving African Americans who had participated in peaceful public demonstrations. For example, in Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 83 S. Ct. 680, 9 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1963), the Court held that the conviction of 187 African American students for demonstrating on the grounds of the state capitol in Columbia, South Carolina, had infringed on their "constitutionally protected rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of their grievances." In Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 87 S. Ct. 242, 17 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1966), however, the Court also made clear that assemblies are not lawful merely because they involve a political issue. In this case Harriet L. Adderley and other college students had protested the arrest of Civil Rights protesters by blocking a jail driveway. When the students ignored requests to leave the area, they were arrested and charged with Trespass. The Court held that "[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." In general, a unit of government may reasonably regulate parades, processions, and large public gatherings by requiring a license. Licenses cannot, however, be denied based on the political message of the group. Persons who refuse to obtain a license and hold their march or gathering may be charged with unlawful assembly. Cross-references Freedom of Speech; Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. unlawful assembly n. although freedom of assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, it is unlawful to assemble for the purpose of starting a riot or breaching the peace, or when such an assembly reasonably could be expected to cause a riot or endanger the public. The right of law enforcement to require disbursement of such an assembly is part of the "police powers" of the state, but the dangers of riot or breach of peace are subjective and decided on the spot by police officers or other public officials. Until the late 1930s claims of "unlawful assembly" were often used to break up labor union picket lines, against peaceful civil rights marches in the 1950s and 1960s, and by the police against anti-Vietnam War demonstrators in Los Angeles, Washington and Chicago in the late 1960s. Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved. UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, crim. law. A disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons who meet together with an intent mutually to assist each other in the execution of some unlawful enterprise of a private nature, with force and violence; if they move forward towards its execution, it is then a rout (q.v.) and if they actually execute their design, it amounts to a riot. (q.v.) 4 Bl. Com. 140; 1 Russ. on Cr. 254; Hawk. c. 65, s. 9; Com. Dig. Forcible Entry, D 10; Vin. Abr. Riots, &c., A. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856. Quote Link to comment
Rustina 510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 So sense they did not intend to commit a illegal act, Incite a riot or disturb the public peace it is not a unlawful assembly. END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!! ;) They even had their permit Quote Link to comment
Rustina 510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Anyone who doesn't understand the basics of "lawfull assembly",is THE moron. At least we agree on one thing Quote Link to comment
intense 620 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 this is the reason why America is going to hell in a hand basket!!! we pay taxes so the fat asses in d.c. can come up with bullshit laws like this! who cares if they were asked to stop or leave. What the hell were the politicians in d.c. ignoring to focus on something that ridiculous!??! :angry: Quote Link to comment
HRH Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Here's the problem. Dancing organized by people is seen as a demonstration. Demonstrations without permits are illegal. The reason these morons got arrested was because they were probably annoying people who were at the Jefferson memorial, who then told police they were trying to quietly enjoy the memorial when groping dancers or what have you had a free-for-all dance session. All these arguments are bullshit because we never see the events that led up to this. Clearly they have been at it for some time. Demonstrations for whatever reason at this memorial clearly fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Parks Police, who most likely wouldn't have had a problem with it other than it was causing a disturbance. Police are complaint driven usually. Some old lady probably saw some dancer making a public display of affection at a serious memorial that made her upset, so she complains. Cops come in and ask people to disperse. Dancers who are now protesters (after being asked to leave) disregard police orders to GTFO, and are arrested. Play by the rules or find the legal way around them. Here's a similar situation: Guy comes on my property and he's a douchebag. I ask him to leave nicely and he says no. I beat the shit out of douchebag for not leaving when asked. Simple enough? These guys are lucky the cops have to pay attention to a rulebook. Enough said! 1 Quote Link to comment
Rustina 510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Well the did have their permits as I have read, it also stated they where never asked for their permits, just told to leave. And the PDA " public display of affection" was all between willing parties, they dont mess with people who didn't come with them. Quote Link to comment
Rustina 510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 These are people who act according to the law, granted I wasn't their myself, Adam vs the world is not unknown to me, he has had a blog and discussion group for years and has done this stuff before, he looks into what is legal and what he should be allowed to do. And tries to exploit overcontrolling non effective police and government, it is brilliant patriotism and one of the things America was founded on. If we always just dispersed for no valid reason, we would still be british. You tea party peeps should know that. Lol Quote Link to comment
HRH Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 I think this Adam fellow is the exact type of douchebag I'd want to kick off my property. Right before I shot him and planted a gun in his hand. Quote Link to comment
metalmonkey47 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 I think this Adam fellow is the exact type of douchebag I'd want to kick off my property. Right before I shot him and planted a gun in his hand. Why don't you just tell us how you REALLY feel? Quote Link to comment
thisismatt Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Here's the problem. Dancing organized by people is seen as a demonstration. Demonstrations without permits are illegal. The reason these morons got arrested was because they were probably annoying people who were at the Jefferson memorial, who then told police they were trying to quietly enjoy the memorial when groping dancers or what have you had a free-for-all dance session. All these arguments are bullshit because we never see the events that led up to this. Clearly they have been at it for some time. Demonstrations for whatever reason at this memorial clearly fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Parks Police, who most likely wouldn't have had a problem with it other than it was causing a disturbance. Police are complaint driven usually. Some old lady probably saw some dancer making a public display of affection at a serious memorial that made her upset, so she complains. Cops come in and ask people to disperse. Dancers who are now protesters (after being asked to leave) disregard police orders to GTFO, and are arrested. Play by the rules or find the legal way around them. Here's a similar situation: Guy comes on my property and he's a douchebag. I ask him to leave nicely and he says no. I beat the shit out of douchebag for not leaving when asked. Simple enough? These guys are lucky the cops have to pay attention to a rulebook. Enough said! Your "similar" situation is not even remotely, vaguely similar. There's a big difference between private and public property. I can understand the reason to have a permit, for the sake of the general public to limit groups from repeatedly gathering in a public place, but the cops should have been able to explain this to the people they were threatening to arrest, rather than just threatening them. Quote Link to comment
HRH Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 :rofl: Isn't that DTP and Indy's line? Quote Link to comment
metalmonkey47 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 :rofl: Isn't that DTP and Indy's line? Now staring MM47 :rofl: We have a secret club going on Quote Link to comment
HRH Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Your "similar" situation is not even remotely, vaguely similar. There's a big difference between private and public property. I can understand the reason to have a permit, for the sake of the general public to limit groups from repeatedly gathering in a public place, but the cops should have been able to explain this to the people they were threatening to arrest, rather than just threatening them. I agree with you there regarding the cops' ability to let them know, however, since it's obvious this had been going on for a while, I would bet they got tired of explaining why people were going to get arrested if they didn't leave and finally took some people down to get the message across. The principle is the same, regardless of private or public property. They were told to leave, they didn't, shit happened. Quote Link to comment
Z chopper Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 What I saw on the video the people were not causeing a disturbance till the cops got involved, therefore it is the cops involved that incited and instigated the public disturbance. Then the cops ordered the media out restricting freedom of the press. Quote Link to comment
Guest DatsuNoob Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 This thread sucks LOLZ. We all the know the world is unfair. We all know life has a tendency to suck these days and freedoms are being removed. Keep bitching though, it sure seems to help change things :lol: you guys are funny. O yeah, in befoar teh lawwwwwwk!! Quote Link to comment
john510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 This whole argument is a fucking joke.Waaaaaaaaaa! my civil rights were violated because i wanted to act like an idiot in public place,a state park.Im done here,some people just dont get it. Quote Link to comment
thisismatt Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 I agree with you there regarding the cops' ability to let them know, however, since it's obvious this had been going on for a while, I would bet they got tired of explaining why people were going to get arrested if they didn't leave and finally took some people down to get the message across. The principle is the same, regardless of private or public property. They were told to leave, they didn't, shit happened. The principle is not the same. A private land owner can kick someone off his property for any reason he feels like. Law enforcement does not own public property. Law enforcement can't kick a person off public property without good reason (a law being violated). They can't kick a person off just because they feel like it. Quote Link to comment
NWOleman Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 cops are douchebags! fuck them! Quote Link to comment
Rustina 510 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Wow skib, you sure now how to start a thread and let it grow Like wild fire Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.